‘Unhiring’ Steven Salaita

‘Unhiring’ Steven Salaita


In early August, the website Inside Higher Ed reported that at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), an official offer of a tenured professorial appointment had been rescinded by a top administrative officer. That alone would have been unusual, but concerns grew after sources close to the decision-making process reported that Chancellor Phyllis Wise was responding to calls and e-mails about Professor Steven Salaita’s acerbic and emphatic anti-Israel tweets.

Once scholars heard of this, protests erupted: 17,000 signatures have been gathered criticizing the decision, and 3,000 professors are boycotting UIUC. The American Association of University Professors issued a statement declaring that social media expression is private and protected speech, and that the use of “civility” as a litmus test—which the university now admits in rescinding the hire of Salaita—is unacceptable.

The University of Illinois board of trustees insists that “speech that promotes malice is not an acceptable form of civil argument if we wish to ensure that students, faculty and staff are comfortable in a place of scholarship.” However, the US Department of Education has determined that students’ “comfort” is not as important as free debate.

There are three important issues here. First, universities are increasingly being asked to shut down criticism of Israel. Second, a review of Salaita’s teaching evaluations at his former college, Virginia Tech, shows enthusiastic appreciation of his teaching and interactions with students. Hence, the trustees’ decision is based entirely on a hypothetical potential harm to students caused by his allegedly offensive tweets. Third, the chancellor and trustees at UIUC have broken a covenant with their faculty. Faculty governance is the mainstay of the educational process. Many trustees, on the other hand, have no background in higher education; they are there primarily to safeguard and grow the endowment. What is startling about the Salaita case is that the board let its protection of the bottom line completely overshadow the university’s educational mission and hid these financial motives behind the notion of “civility.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It takes a dedicated team to publish timely, deeply researched pieces like this one. For over 150 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and democracy. Today, in a time of media austerity, articles like the one you just read are vital ways to speak truth to power and cover issues that are often overlooked by the mainstream media.

This month, we are calling on those who value us to support our Spring Fundraising Campaign and make the work we do possible. The Nation is not beholden to advertisers or corporate owners—we answer only to you, our readers.

Can you help us reach our $20,000 goal this month? Donate today to ensure we can continue to publish journalism on the most important issues of the day, from climate change and abortion access to the Supreme Court and the peace movement. The Nation can help you make sense of this moment, and much more.

Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Ad Policy