Wednesday, September 10, 2014

UIUC Votes of No Confidence and Related Statements

The below collects departments or units voting "no confidence" and provides the full text of each vote in addition to related statements from two additional units.

1. American Indian Studies
22 August 2014; Urbana, Champaign

At its annual retreat this afternoon, the faculty of the American Indian Studies program at the University of Illinois cast a vote of no confidence in UIUC Chancellor Phyllis Wise.

Our sentiment is based on Wise's decision to effectively fire Prof. Steven Salaita, whose de facto hire had been properly vetted by the unit and approved by the college through standard academic procedures. This process culminated in the signing of a good-faith contract between Prof. Sailata and our college, and only awaited customary rubber-stamp approval by the UIUC Board of Trustees.

In clear disregard of basic principles of shared governance and unit autonomy, and without basic courtesy and respect for collegiality, Chancellor Wise did not consult American Indian Studies nor the college before making her decision.

While she has yet to furnish specific reasons, we believe that Chancellor Wise's decision was in fact made in response to external pressures that sought to block Prof. Salaita's hire, coupled with her objection over the content and tone of his personal and political tweets over the subject of Israeli bombing of Palestine.

With this vote of no confidence, the faculty of UIUC's American Indian Studies program also joins the thousands of scholars and organizations in the United States and across the world in seeing the Chancellor's action as a violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

We are grateful for the solidarity and support that our colleagues have already shown us in this matter, and we invite other units on our campus to similarly take up the question of whether or not the Chancellor deserves the confidence of our University's faculty.
2. Philosophy
The Department of Philosophy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign today (August 28) approved the following resolution:



Whereas the recent words and actions of Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees in connection with the revocation of an offer of employment to Dr. Steven Salaita betray a culpable disregard not only for academic freedom and free speech generally but also for the principles of shared governance and established protocols for hiring, tenure, and promotion, the faculty of the Department of Philosophy 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.

3. Asian American Studies
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, the faculty of the Department of Asian American Studies cast a vote of no confidence in UIUC Chancellor Phyllis Wise and the Board of Trustees.

In response to the firing of Professor Steven Salaita by the Chancellor, an act that undermined shared governance and unit autonomy, and the recent suggestions reported in the media of external pressures from donors and alumni in the hiring process well after the standard vetting process was concluded, we no longer have faith in the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees who are implicated in this highly irregular action. Additionally, we are suspicious of the recent move by the Senate Executive Committee to aid the administration in regularizing these processes for undermining unit autonomy.

Although the recent statements of the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees on Friday, August 22nd, affirm the values of dialogue and diversity, we believe this decision has done enormous harm to our campus and has created a climate that does not honor dissent. Set in the context of the recent Israeli bombing of Gaza, the Chancellor claims to have made this decision based on tweets with an inappropriate tone of incivility. We believe her actions exceeded the bounds of the rules and policies that govern our university. Furthermore, the firing of Salaita has created an atmosphere of fear and retaliation for unpopular academic, political, and personal pursuits.

The administration’s claims to honor diversity are at odds with the marginalization of academic units that represent the teaching and research of topics related to racialized populations. These units serve as the face of diversity on this campus, yet their autonomy is willfully disregarded. Thus, the University continues a superficial endorsement of diversity through its contradictory actions regarding issues of racial injustice and violence.

In solidarity with the American Indian Studies program and thousands of scholars and organizations around the world, we see the Chancellor’s decision and the approval by the Board of Trustees as a violation of academic freedom and the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

4. English
On September 2, 2014, the faculty of the Department of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cast a vote of no confidence in the Board of Trustees, President Robert Easter, and Chancellor Phyllis Wise.
This no confidence vote follows the university administration’s decision to rescind a tenured job offer in American Indian Studies to Professor Steven Salaita. The English department’s vote expresses grave disappointment in the way the administration has overridden the multiple levels of rigorous faculty review that make up any offer of a tenured position at our university. We are deeply troubled by the disregard for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the principles of shared governance as well as the complete lack of faculty consultation that the administration has demonstrated. In addition, we are concerned about the possibility that the administration’s decision was influenced by political considerations and by the interference of donors and alumni. If this decision is not reversed, we fear that the reputation of the University of Illinois as a site of scholarly excellence and diverse viewpoints will suffer permanent damage. In the face of the administration’s troubling actions, we call for the reinstatement of Professor Salaita and we reaffirm the established protocols for hiring, tenure, and promotion that have allowed us to recruit and retain top faculty. 
5. History
 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.
6. Latina/Latino Studies
The faculty of the Department of Latina/Latino Studies (LLS) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign met on Wednesday, September 3, 2014 to discuss the University’s revocation of an offer of employment to Dr. Steven Salaita. We concluded that this revocation and the subsequent public statements by Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees about Dr. Salaita’s appointment demonstrate a clear disregard for the principles of academic freedom, free speech, and shared governance, as well as for established protocols for hiring, tenure, and promotion. The faculty of LLS therefore declares that we have no confidence in the leadership of the current Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees

7. Comparative and World Literature
The faculty of the Program in Comparative and World Literature at the University of Illinois stand united in their trust that 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. Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s unilateral decision on August 1, 2014, to inform Dr. Steven Salaita, summarily and without faculty consultation, that she would not forward his contract to the Board of Trustees, voided every preceding review by faculty and administrative personnel, and has caused immediate and lasting damage to the national and international reputations of the University of Illinois. Furthermore, Chancellor Wise’s August 22, 2014, explanation of her action in the name of “civility” directly contradicted the protection of tenure and the right to free speech guaranteed by University statutes and its membership in the AAUP, and obscured the role played in this decision by political pressures. President Robert Easter and the Board of Trustees exacerbated this damage by their endorsement of this violation of shared governance, due process, and academic freedom on August 22, 2014. The University of Illinois Statutes clearly state 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.” The faculty of the Program In Comparative and World Literature 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 their decision by reinstating Dr. Salaita; to reaffirm the established protocols for hiring, tenure, and promotion; and to abide by University statutes to protect all members of its academic staff "against influences, from within or without the University.” 
8, Anthropology
The faculty of the Department of Anthropology met this afternoon and adopted, by vote of a strong faculty majority, the following resolution (also attached)of no confidence in current UIUC leadership.

The faculty of the Department of Anthropology has watched with increasing concern as details of Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s decision to withdraw an offer of employment to Professor Steven Salaita have come to light. It is now clear to us that the Chancellor violated established procedures for hiring, and that she acted without consulting other academic leaders at the unit and college level.  Subsequent statements by the Chancellor, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees call into question their commitment to academic freedom and the principles of faculty governance that are at the core of a research university. The repercussions of these actions have already affected us in multiple ways, including our interactions with national and international colleagues. This expanding controversy will undoubtedly undercut our ability to recruit and retain top faculty in our field. We are no longer confident that the continuing leadership of our current Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees is in the best interest of the University of Illinois. Therefore, we join other faculty bodies on campus in registering our vote of no confidence in Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees.
9. French and Italian
The Department of French and Italian is deeply concerned by the handling of the Steven Salaita case and its immediate and lasting chilling effects on the status of freedom of speech, especially academic freedom, and the principles of shared governance on our campus. Both academic freedom and shared governance were severely curtailed by Chancellor Wise’s decision not to forward Professor Salaita’s appointment to the Board of Trustees, a decision since endorsed by the Board and the President. Neither faculty in Professor Salaita’s department of American Indian Studies nor in any other department that might have been able to speak to his case were consulted—indeed, no faculty were consulted at all.

The handling of Professor Salaita’s appointment is just the latest and most egregious example of the failure to respect shared governance at the University of Illinois, where top-down management has ignored at will the most fundamental stakeholders of our institution: students and teachers. Many of those teachers are non-tenure track instructors who have to wonder just how precarious their own positions are, currently working without contracts as the administration continues to refuse to recognize their collective bargaining rights.

Chancellor Wise’s decision has created a climate of fear and anxiety, abridged freedom of speech and academic freedom, and harmed the national and international reputation of the University of Illinois. We therefore cast a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Wise, President Easter, and the Board of Trustees.

10. Religious Studies
At its meeting of 5 September 2014, the faculty of the Department of Religion at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, cast a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees. The vote for no confidence carried by a strong majority.

This no confidence vote pertains to the University’s decision to rescind the offer of an associate professorship with tenure in American Indian Studies to Dr. Steven Salaita.

The Religion Department objects strenuously to the highly irregular way in which the University administration rescinded the appointment offer to Dr. Salaita. With this action, the University administration has violated established procedures for making faculty appointments and has overruled a thorough and carefully conducted faculty and administrative review of Dr. Salaita’s career without adequate justification. Moreover, in this case, the University administration has shown an unacceptable disregard for the fundamental principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Substantial evidence is now available that indicates that the administration’s decision was influenced by political considerations and by pressure from donors and alums. That is a fundamental breach of the integrity of the university.

If this decision is not reversed, the reputation of the University of Illinois as an institution that aspires to the highest ideals in American education will suffer substantial damage.
11. East Asian Languages and Cultures

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 Trusties and in calling for the reinstatement of Dr. Salaita.

12. Gender & Women's Studies

The Department of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Illinois stands with 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.


13. Sociology
September 10, 2014

Deeply troubled by the actions of University of Illinois administrators with respect to the revocation of an employment offer to Dr. Steven Salaita, the faculty of the Department of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cast a vote of no confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees. As the University and the world confront complicated and divisive issues, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding in our democracy requires academic institutions to defend academic freedom and respect freedom of speech. Successful leadership of a preeminent public academic institution requires commitment to shared governance and to established protocols for hiring, tenure, and promotion. Failure to practice any one of these undermines the University's mission to educate society and create new knowledge. Such failures also seriously threaten the reputation of the University of Illinois.

We therefore call upon the Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees to reinstate Dr. Salaita. We further call upon them to demonstrate their commitment to shared governance and academic freedom by affirming their support for established protocols for hiring, tenure and promotion.

14. Department of African American Studies

STATEMENT REGARDING DR. STEVEN SALAITA: DEPARTMENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES(passed by strong majority, 9/10/14)
Whereas the foundation of the United States’ higher education system is its commitment to shared governance, free speech, academic freedom, due process, and transparency in all policies, procedures and practices, especially in faculty hiring, tenuring and promotion;
Whereas Chancellor Phyllis Wise is charged with defending these commitments and also with maintaining an inclusive environment in which individuals representing different racial and ethnic groups, class backgrounds, genders and sexualities, and expressions of multiple political viewpoints are incorporated into a common project of teaching, research and service;
Whereas on August 22, 2014, Chancellor Wise without faculty consultation rescinded Dr. Steven Salaita’s hiring, informing him that she would not send his contract to the Board of Trustees, thereby negating several levels of faculty and administrative evaluation;
Whereas Chancellor Wise’s August 22, 2014 explanation for her action, that Dr. Salaita’s comments on social media lacked “civility,” repudiates the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and the securities afforded by tenure; her explanation also masks the influence of economic and political coercion by wealthy alumni and donors played in her decision;
Whereas President Robert Easter and the Board of Trustees endorsed Wise’s violation of shared governance, due process, free speech and academic freedom;
Whereas the American Association of University Professors has condemned the university’s discharge of Dr. Salaita as “tantamount to summary dismissal” and nearly 4,000 faculty from across the country have initiated an academic boycott of the Urbana campus;
Whereas in addition to the violation of Dr. Salaita’s rights, the Department of African American Studies is also deeply concerned by the persistent decline in African American student enrollment during Phyllis Wise’s tenure as chancellor;
Whereas African American enrollment at UIUC has declined from a high of 2516 total students, and 561 or 7.8 percent of the first year class in 2006, to 2059 total students in the spring of 2014 and 433 or 5.9 percent of the first year class in 2013; and the fall 2014 African American first year student enrollment is expected to be in the 300s. While much of the decline is structural, Chancellor Wise has not only failed to stem the decline, it has gotten precipitously worse during her tenure.
Whereas in her January 20, 2014 statement “Moving Past Digital Hate,” Chancellor Wise described student criticism of her as “vitriolic . . . vulgar, crude and in some instances racist and sexist”; she nevertheless concluded, “The negative comments, as offensive as they were, are protected speech,” thus she tolerates and enables a campus climate of hate speech in which racist epithets, depictions, and racial microaggressions are routinely experienced by Blacks and people of color on this campus.
Therefore it is hereby resolved that we the Department of African American Studies join with our colleagues in several departments and programs across the campus in concluding that we have NO CONFIDENCE in the leadership of the current Chancellor, President, and the Board of Trustees and call on the Chancellor to reverse her decision to de-hire Dr. Salaita and to treat the current situation of African Americans on campus as a crisis requiring immediate action.

15. Education Policy, Organization, & Leadership
September 10, 2014
We, the undersigned faculty from the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership (EPOL), in the long-standing traditions of our department’s mission to advocate for social justice in education and to ensure that minority scholarship has a place at the university, urge the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to consider and approve the appointment of Associate Professor Steven Salaita.
We are concerned that the abrogation of principles of shared governance and the chilling effects of this situation on academic freedom are not only generating international and national harm to the University of Illinois, but also undermining our students’ confidence in the university to provide them with a supportive environment for studying the difficult issues facing education in a pluralistic democracy and diverse global context. Social media is one context in which we are all able to test ideas, form thoughts, and interact in real time with a wider community; it is a place where spontaneity and emotion can enter into the public square in new ways. We believe that Professor Salaita’s academic and non-academic pursuits exemplify changes in our civic life and we would welcome him as a member of our university’s intellectual community.
We value education as a process where contentious and urgent social issues can be debated with commitment, intensity, and rigor without fear of recourse. We urge the administration to see the damage inflicted on our community of scholars and our future teachers when silence and surveillance replace expression.
In the absence of positive action leading to the reinstatement of Prof. Salaita, we express our lack of confidence in the Board of Trustees.
James Anderson, Head / Gutgsell Professor
Cris Mayo, Associate Head and Professor
Linda Herrera, Associate Professor
William T. Trent, Professor
Anjalé D. Welton, Assistant Professor
Pradeep A. Dhillon, Associate Professor
Yoon Pak, Associate Professor
Lorenzo Baber, Assistant Professor
Rema Reynolds, Assistant Professor
Anne Haas Dyson, Professor
Adrienne D. Dixon
William Cope, Professor
Ruth Nicole Brown, Associate Professor
Christopher Lubienski, Professor
Cameron McCarthy, Professor
Rebecca Ginsberg, Associate Professor


16. Slavic Languages & Literatures

The faculty of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign considers the revocation of an offer of employment to Dr. Steven Salaita a violation of the principles of academic freedom and free speech, the principles of shared governance, and established hiring and academic promotion protocols at our institution. We hereby strongly condemn this decision and the related statements and actions by Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees, and declare our lack of confidence in their leadership in this matter and our great concern regarding the implications it has for the University of Illinois.
OTHER RELATED STATEMENTS RELATED TO CONFIDENCE

1. Geography & GIS*

The faculty of the Department of Geography & GIScience expresses its grave concerns around Chancellor Wise’s withdrawal of an employment offer to Dr. Steven Salaita by the American Indian Studies Program. This action threatens free speech and faculty governance at the University of Illinois.
We uphold the principle of free speech and the passionate debate of ideas. Associate Chancellor for Public Affairs Robin Kaler’s initial response to media queries regarding Professor Salaita’s tweets on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the correct position to take and one the Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees should have upheld. Kaler stated: “Faculty have a wide range of scholarly and political views, and we recognize the freedom-of-speech rights of all of our employees.” Email communications uncovered by FOIA requests indicate that political interests played a role in Chancellor Wise’s decision to reverse this position. We deplore the intrusion of non-academic considerations in setting university standards and policy.
We are most troubled by the procedure by which the Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees decided to deny Dr. Salaita employment at the University of Illinois. University statutes give departments, colleges, and the Provost’s office great responsibility in the hiring and promotion of its faculty. The scrupulous search and evaluation processes involve national searches, rigorous review of teaching, research, and service records, and multiple votes by duly constituted committees at the departmental, college, and campus levels. The committees at all three levels deemed Dr. Salaita to be the top candidate for the tenured faculty position.
The decision of the Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees to rescind the employment offer to Dr. Salaita was made without consulting the faculty of the American Indian Studies Program or the Interim-Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. We find this arbitrary administrative practice to be intolerable and call for a public process to strengthen shared governance at the University of Illinois. The gravity of these issues compels us to object to this form of arbitrary administrative rule by voting no confidence in the Chancellor’s, President’s, and Board of Trustees’ handling of the Salaita case.
The faculty deeply regrets that the national and international reputation of our great university has been badly tarnished by the administration’s actions. In order to restore the faculty trust that is essential to university governance and to protect the freedom of academic inquiry, we implore the Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees to reinstate the offer to Dr. Salaita.
*Approved by a strong majority of departmental faculty on September 10, 2014
[N.B. In contrast to other unit statements, the above position states no confidence in the Chancellor's, President's, and Board of Trustees'  handling of the Salaita case.] 

2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNING

The faculty of the Department of Urban & Regional Planning (DURP) in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign considers the revocation of an offer of employment to Dr. Steven Salaita a violation of the principles of academic freedom, free speech, shared governance, and established hiring and academic promotion protocols at our institution. One does not need to agree with the substance of Dr. Salaita's comments, to be alarmed by recent decisions. DURP faculty firmly believe that the university must be a place where opposing points of view can be expressed; this belief is fundamental to what a world class university is built upon. 
 
DURP faculty teach and research about the ways communities make decisions and distribute resources. We explore topics such as sustainability, environmental justice, neoliberal policies, land use development, poverty, segregation, exploitation of labor, climate change, old and new forms of apartheid, and abuse of police power. Research in our field routinely tackles question of injustice and discrimination, especially in minority and low-income communities. Studying the underlying forces such as power, greed, and racism, requires an open and supportive university environment. More importantly, if we want to attract and inspire students to work for justice and fairness, we need to show our own commitment to these principles. We shudder at the notion of the campus leadership and Board of Trustees exercising final decision making authority on who we hire to teach our students based on vague and politically malleable notions of civility. 
 
In the words of Justice William Brennan, “Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” Keyishian v Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 684 (1967). 
 
We express gratitude to Trustee Montgomery for respecting shared governance by trusting the hiring decisions made by the American Indian Studies faculty.
 
We hereby state our opposition to the decision to not hire Dr. Salaita by the Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees, and voice great concern regarding the implications it has for the University of Illinois.
 
Passed by a majority of the DURP faculty.

October 13, 2014

The below is not a vote of no confidence but a statement written prior to any of the above "no confidence" votes.
Statement by the Executive Committee of the Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies on the Firing of Dr. Steven Salaita


We are dismayed and disturbed over the unilateral revocation of Steven Salaita’s contract by the University administration, without consulting the Department of American Indian Studies, in which he was to be appointed, apparently on the basis of his open opposition to Israel’s military onslaught against the civilian population in the besieged Palestinian Gaza.[1]  This action is a breach of the principles of shared governance and academic freedom, and its implications are alarming.  Irrespective of one’s position on the conflict between Israel and Gaza, it is essential to affirm academic freedom as the cornerstone of our scholarly vocation, without which true critical inquiry ceases to exist.  We are deeply concerned about what such decisions will do to free and frank scholarship on the Middle East on our campus in these critical times.

Political views and comments expressed as a private citizen have nothing to do with one’s competence and qualifications as a scholar. There is nothing anti-Semitic in Dr. Salaita’s comments on Twitter; the targets of his criticisms are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the illegal and unethical assault on Gaza, and those who support it. There have been instances on our campus and elsewhere in which ardent supporters of Israel have engaged in malicious and unethical actions in order to suppress criticism of Israel and public revelation of the realities of its policies in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank, policies that violate international law and outrage moral conscience. The University of Illinois must resist political pressures to silence voices of legitimate outrage.

The firing of Steven Salaita has aroused indignation among academics around the world.  At least one senior scholar considered cancelling plans to visit our campus, lest that visit be construed as an endorsement of the University, and specifically of the firing of Dr. Salaita. This indicates the potential repercussions of the University’s action for its standing among academics worldwide.  For upper administration to rescind an offer that had been approved by an academic unit and college sends a clear message: that the Chancellor’s office is willing exert its power to suppress work valued by expert faculty. This administrative oversight of opinion cannot but have a chilling effect, sending a clear message that professional recognition on this campus is contingent upon the expression of permissible thought.  It is also in direct opposition to the administration’s frequent proclamations that diversity is a major value informing campus policy.

We call on the University to take the ethical and courageous stance of affirming the principles of academic freedom and shared governance by honorably reinstating Professor Salaita as Associate Professor in the Department of American Indian Studies, ensuring that the key principle in recruiting for our wonderful campus is not political views but academic qualifications.



















Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Feisal Isatrabadi, excerpt from letter copied to Chancellor Wise

Excerpt from a letter declining an invitation, copied to Chancellor Wise

I am very grateful for your gracious invitation to speak at your campus. And while I hope that the day will come when I can accept an invitation to speak there, so long as the administration at U of I fails to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech, I am afraid that I find it quite impossible to do so.
Your Chancellor has failed in the first duty of a university administrator, to protect her faculty from interference from outside forces that seek to stifle debate, even if that debate is deemed obnoxious. I can only refer to the salutary example set by Indiana University’s own Herman Wells, who protected such unpopular researchers as Alfred Kinsey in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, despite outrage they caused in the Indiana legislature and in other constituencies.
Once again, I thank you for the invitation.

Vicente Diaz, Statement Read at the Meeting of the Whole, 9/22/14

My name is Vicente M. Diaz. I am an Associate Professor in American Indian Studies and Anthropology. I am also an affiliate faculty member in History and Asian American Studies.  I represent American Indian Studies; in fact, I co-chaired the search committee that recommended the hire of Steven Salaita.

I’m here to express moral indignation and outrage at the BOT’s denial of Prof. Salaita’s hire. Far from over, and even further from correct, our leadership’s decision is a wrongheaded and misguided action that has tarnished our university’s reputation among academics who know and understand how academia is supposed to work. It has also put us in actual harm’s way, some of us more than others. Above all else, this administration has willingly placed political expediency and possibly money over academic matters. Indeed, academics is the biggest casualty of our leadership’s dereliction of its duties.

This casualty is most clearly visible and palpably experienced when viewed from our vantage point in American Indian Studies, the originating unit, where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

I begin by addressing a particularly insidious rumor of the sort that can come only from the kind of toxic environment that Chancellor Wise has created and maintained right down to her comments today. It is a rumor that I’ve already had to lay to rest twice in private emails, namely, that our unit Director, Prof. Robert Warrior used his influence and power to hire Salaita, who was a student of his years ago at another university.  I assure you that Warrior did not ask me to bring this up and is not even aware that I’m doing so.

In fact, Warrior maintained his distance from Salaita’s candidacy, and shame on those of you who are spreading this rumor in order to delegitimize him and my unit.

The fact that I even have to state in public that we did our due diligence, that our process and findings were affirmed at the college, provostial, and even by the Chancellor’s own Vice Chancellors, is itself a shameful testimony into just what kind of environment our leadership has plunged us.

Let me state it in the most simple of terms:  this case was a routine academic hire, properly vetted all the way up to where substance matters, and because it concerned tenure, it received additional vetting at the national and international levels.

Contrary to all the accolades about her courage and bravado from people who don’t understand academic process, and from people who do, but support her for other reasons, the only courage that Chancellor Wise needed was to simply tell those donors and lobbyists that the case had been properly vetted and that she stands by the academic process. Period.

For it was actually she and President Easter and the BOT who opened the floodgates by, in effect, capitulating to external pressure to block Salaita’s hire, whether or not she based her decision on their interests.

The simple fact is that she involved herself on non-academic grounds and made a decision on the most unscholarly of approaches and in the most clandestine of ways, with the blessings of the Board and the President – or was it at their behest? – to indeed block Salaita’s hire on decidedly non-academic terms. Of course, it is precisely the contention of thousands upon thousands of scholars, particularly in but not limited to the humanities and social sciences, but scholars of conscience nonetheless, and dozens upon dozens of academic organizations, departments, disciplines, that the real casualty is academic excellence itself.

The chilling effects are now upon us. And this is on the Chancellor, not on Salaita.

Three weeks ago, I received an email from an individual, unknown to me, inviting me to “discuss” the Salaita case at some undisclosed venue in Danville.

Even a cursory read of the letter reveals it to be something other than a genuine interest in civil dialogue, as for instance, when its author addresses me – addresses me -- as “foaming in the mouth” in support of a “rabid” Salaita, who is further described as “anti-Jewish” in a sentence that also conflates Palestine with Hamas.

Contrary to what you’ve heard from a well orchestrated and financed smear campaign aimed at stopping Salaita’s hire because of his political viewpoints, it is in fact reductive and sloppy to equate Salaita’s anti-Zionist stance with anti-Jewish or anti-Semitist ideology, or to equate Palestine with Hamas. Apparently, he has also been charged with siding with ISIS even if he was actually condemning that group in the same period in which he was vehemently condemning Israel’s military assault on Palestinians.  Had Salaita only tweeted about Isis, I dare say that I would not be standing here today discussing the grave consequences of the Salaita debacle.

For what was especially ominous in that letter was how it also urged me to bring to the meeting way over there in Danville, “some of the Palestinian students” from UIUC.  The targeting of this particular group of students should not be trivialized given how the author equates Palestine with terrorism. Nobody can read this letter and conclude that it intends anything other than something sinister passing as an invitation to dialogue.

I received this letter for no other reason than my public defense of Salaita and my disagreement with the University on academic terms.  Precisely because the University musters all of its authority and resources so, we have now arrived at the point wherein to publicly disagree with the University is to be virtually cast as a supporter of terrorism, if not a terrorist.

Neither I nor Prof. Salaita are rabid dogs who hate Jewish people. The preponderance of the evidence show him to be not only a stellar, but also a beloved teacher, one fully capable of subordinating or bracketing his politics in favor of student learning and real critical thinking. Passion, of course, is a prerequisite for compassion, and when combined with the demands and rigors of dispassionate analyses, they become prerequisites for cutting-edge scholarship.

My claims here are best grasped on the grounds of academic discourse, and the negative consequences when these aren’t adhered to. To date, the Chancellor has yet to look us in the eye and explain her actions to us.  I also seriously doubt that she would ever have taken such an action were this a case of a hire in one of the STEM fields, or even in one of the traditional disciplinary departments.  

I think she saw us as collateral damage, but underestimated just how damaging her actions would be for the Humanities and the Social Sciences, which probably accounts for her expressions of regret. But these expressions are way too little and way too late.

In closing, like the heads of the 16 departments, I still don’t have confidence in her words, much less on her abilities to safeguard academic integrity. Because sure as it is true that “an attack on one is an attack on all” the other side of the coin rings even more true: that what is good for American Indian Studies as an academic unit is also good for the entire institution. 

This principle of unit autonomy is the bedrock of shared governance, which is key to proper academic governance, whose ultimate objective is to safeguard academic integrity and excellence.  All other concerns must serve this mission because that is what we do and who we are.

And so, when the Chancellor and her supporters on campus urge us to pick up the pieces and move on, their words ring as vacuous, as hypocritical, and therefore as outrageous as the administration’s reasons for targeting and pre-empting Salaita’s academic hire in the first place.

Thus I call upon the senate to rise and express moral and, I shall coin a term here, academic outrage at the administration’s decision. By its own admission, this leadership – including some in our own body’s leadership – have placed political and other considerations above academics. 

And if, under this new regime, civility be the condition for expressing academic freedom and excellence, then let the appropriate expression be that of civil disobedience.  Move on?  Colleagues, the work of reclaiming this university from those who would sell it to the highest bidder under the suspect mantra of civility has only just begun.  Stand up, stand up like Trustee Montgomery, who had the audacity to look at the evidence, and admit he was wrong in initially supporting the Chancellor. Stand up for academic integrity and the academic excellence that is staked on it.


Monday, September 8, 2014

Eman Ghanayem, "Criminalizing/Civil-izing the Palestinian" (Response at the 9/18 Conversation with Katherine Franke)



I would like to start my commentary by pointing out to that aspect of Steven Salaita’s scholarship and the one I am working on developing which aims at comparing American Indian narratives to Palestinian ones. It is noteworthy that both Steven Salaita and I might agree, as well as the AIS faculty I have been working with and whose insight has been the most useful if not life-changing, that these comparisons are not made for the purpose of conflating the two, or creating good-looking parallelisms, but rather connecting them for the main purpose of finding ways to counter the colonial violence and policing these communities have been forced into. One similarity that stands out in the Steven Salaita affair that not only connects him to the American Indian, but also to other minorities that have been striving for their liberation, is how these groups have been loosely accused by the power that polices their bodies and minds of being complicit in and responsible for their own tragic living, deeming their actions of resistance as criminal and deserving of contempt and punishment. The discourse that has been employed against Steven Salaita is nothing short of atrocious and disgusting and has criminalized him in ways that need serious attention and repair. Looking back into statements written criticizing Steven Salaita, sadly enough sometimes those written in support of him, and the language used throughout the Board of Trustees meeting, a few examples stand out:


One: In one of the statements criticizing Steven Salaita and describing him as dangerous to the U of I community, his words are called “vulgar.” Vulgar being a kin to other words that have been in use against Palestinians, like “savage,” “barbaric,” “animal,” and “non-human” is a word that was used by the author very spontaneously, or maybe intentionally, with complete disregard of how words such as “vulgar” have been used to justify and further the occupation of Palestinians. In one of his speeches, Netanyahu references Israel as the only civilization in the middle of the jungle [reminiscent of Ehud Barak’s famous description of Israel as “a villa in the jungle"]. He also repeatedly referred to Arabs as barbarian and savage. We go back to how these words have been used against certain communities in the US, and though people, academics at least, now know better than describe an American Indian, scholar or otherwise, as “savage” or “barbarian,” in the neoliberal world the US has created, the image of the Palestinian remains easily accessible for a character assassination of the sort without the slightest shame, or even the slightest self-awareness.


Two: Most statements still dissociate Steven Salaita from the context he speaks from. He is a Palestinian living in diaspora, still has relatives who are subjected to persecution in Palestine, and whose tweets comment on one of the most atrocious crimes of 2014 if not of the 21st century that resulted in the killing of almost 2900 people. As we speak, Gaza’s patients in hospitals are losing fights against their wounds, people are taken into jail for protesting injustices, and many are trying to cope with mental and physical disabilities, re-build their homes, and provide good living for their families. Yet in the weird mess this has created, Steven Salaita commentating on crimes becomes the criminal, whereas people who killed these 2900 people, killed what amounts to a quarter of a million and displaced almost 8 million people are not criminal. Those sending military aid are not criminals. Those whose tax money pays for Israel’s weaponry are not criminals or even complicit. And this is how this logic goes.  


Three: Even some of the discourse that has acknowledged the victimhood of Steven Salaita lacks enough or any engagement with who he is, the nation he belongs to, and their project of decolonization that has been ongoing for almost 80 years now, since the time of the British Mandate in the region. Some of his supporters have defended his tweets by calling them emotional— employing the notion that “he is writing these things because of how the conflict personally affects him and his emotions, and thus he has the right to be angry and use any language that comes out in the ‘spirit of the moment.’” The use of such discourse also goes in line with what has been used against Palestinians throughout history. They are not intellectual beings in control of their words and actions, but they are feeling-led, sensuous, and in some cases, stupid. The suicide-bomber is not an intellectual being. The protestor is not an intellectual being. The politician is not an intellectual being. The person whose house just got bombed is not an intellectual being. They need to be disciplined, in some cases, “civilized.” Israel did to the Middle East what no Arab has done—bring a civilization to the jungle. I go back to that statement because it is important to see what one should and should not say when talking about Palestinians and their culture that has always been creative, literary, and diverse, until it was usurped, deformed, and in some cases appropriated for the foundation of a new alien state. Palestine is more than Edward Said. It is Ibrahim Touqan, Mahmoud Darwish, Fadwa Touqan, Samih al-Qasem, Suheir Hammad, Rashid Khaldidi, Rabab Abdulhadi, Hatem Bazian, Tamim Al Barghouthi, Rasmeah Odeh, Naji al-Ali, Ghassan Kanafani, and Steven Salaita amongst many others. These are some of the Palestinians who have been targeted for their scholarship or literature— some of them held in house arrest, jailed, injured, and even assassinated (I am referencing here Naji al Ali, a caricaturist, and Ghassan Kanafani, a journalist and fiction writer).


Four: In the BoT meeting, one of those who requested public comment was an ex-trustee who said, without self-restraint, without shame, without raising eyebrows or causing a fuss that he does not want “Steven Salaita to be the face of this [“fine”] institution.” Nobody stood up and said “What is wrong with you?” “What is wrong with Steven Salaita’s face?” “Why can’t this institution have as one of its faces a brown, Palestinian face?” They did not. They did not call it racism or bias. They did not call it “uncivil” or “malice.” Instead, they applauded him. Chairman Kennedy screamed a “Thank you” that he did not use with any of the other speakers. His statement was celebrated. Nobody wants the face of a criminal to be the face of the academy after all. Isn’t that the way it goes?


Conclusion: I am sharing these little “nuances” to show their great damage. I think it is about time that the academy questions its discourse and realizes what horrible crimes its words produce. I am here to comment on academic freedom by saying that the reason why those in support of Chancellor Wise’s decision also employed a discourse of academic freedom is because it has always been the case that some people are excluded from that freedom anyways. Steven Salaita as a Palestinian is physically not free; he remains policed like me and everyone else who dares to criticize power. The fact that he is also not academically free should not only tie to his ethnicity but also tie to how the Academy, at times, functions like a state that permits, prohibits, and punishes without accountability and, as I said before, without shame or even the least bit of self-awareness. 

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Chantal Nadeau's "On Courage" (Response at the 9/18 Conversation with Katerine Franke)

Academic Freedom and Political Dissent
A Conversation with Katherine Franke and the Community
Independent Media Center, Urbana IL
09/18/2014


On Courage
Chantal Nadeau
Professor, 
Gender & Women's Studies

On September 11, 2014, the Board of Trustees rubber-stamped Chancellor Wise’s recommendation to not hire Steven Salaita. In an upsetting majority vote of 8-1 (Trustee James D. Montgomery casting the only no), the Trustees sided with the Chancellor in her assessment that Salaita’s presence on this campus was not welcomed.  

In the days and even minutes before the votes, many saluted the Chancellor’s position as one guided by courage.

I want to take a few minutes tonight to reflect on the ways the rhetoric of courage has been articulated in the Salaita case. Far from making Salaita’s firing a state of exception, I use his case as an illustration of what’s cooking right now in the academe for scholars whose intellectual and teaching mission is to provide critical tools to understand how discrimination, social injustice, and inequalities shape both the social and academic economy. I suggest that the language of courage has become a means by which the privileged few appropriate a position to step up, to speak up, and to speak at the expense of those who have been historically injured.

Courage: how noble it sounds.

As a queer theorist, I have been interested in the ways that the rhetoric of courage has been used in a series of LGBT civil rights battles over the past few years. Courage has emerged as a mode of public address in battles over same-sex marriage and the repel of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Queers and non-queers are asked to show courage and demonstrate their civic engagement and duty by supporting demands forequality. Courage is asserted as a virtue, a mark of self-abnegation, of self-sacrifice for the good of all and for the nation. The language of courage promotes a patriotic ideal of the community: a community in which dissent is hushed in order to leave room for the real American cultural values of military service, family, liberal economy, and tolerance as a whole. It is no coincidence that most of the legal battles for LGBTS rights for the past years have been for rights that fall under good civility and service provisions. The rhetoric of courage is evoked to produce and maintain a particular vision of political order, and not to provide new models of citizenship. Ultimately, to be courageous is to be civil.

Over the past weeks, many of my colleagues have articulated beautifully how the Salaita case is deeply entrenched in broader concerns about shared governance, academic freedom, and also the perpetuation of structural racism, homophobia and sexism on this campus.

To claim that Wise’s decision and action is a matter of courage is to consolidate a top-down model of governance and a culture of sameness in which the people of courage are actually the people who have incommensurable discretionary power (In this case, the president of the University of Illinois, the Chancellor of the Urbana campus, and the Chair of the Board of Trustees). When Chancellor Wise and her supporters use the language of courage to manufacture a discourse of civility, they legitimize racist interpretations of academic work and consolidate acampus climate in which free speech and political protest can be portrayed as bullying.  But we all know that bullying is the privilege of the big and the strong, and not of the weak or the oppressed.

The language of courage re-directs our sense of who is under threat.  In using the rhetoric of courage to describe Chancellor Wise, commentators discredit the scholars, students and academic units who have worked for years in a climate of physical and institutional violence, often under precarious conditions, negotiating threats, and at the expense of their own intellectual and personal safety.  In using the rhetoric of courage to describe Chancellor Wise, commentators portray courage as an aristocratic virtue rather than a value that conveys a fierce desire to bring academic work to bear on questions of social justice. The so-called courage displayed by and attributed to the Chancellor is in fact a breach of institutional procedures, of due process, by someone whose position of power insulates her from the protests of those who support academic freedom without qualification.