John Protevi's Blog

Open Letter in support of Jason Stanley and Rebecca Kukla

We stand in solidarity with Jason Stanley and Rebecca Kukla. They have unjustly been subjected to waves of online harassment produced by twisting their meaning and feeding their names to legions of online haters. Their support of colleagues, pointing out that civility should not excuse brutal and dangerous ideas, do not deserve the anonymous third-party abuse they have received. They are valued members of our profession and we sign to make public our defense of their right to live free of such attempts at intimidation.

Should you wish to co-sign this letter, you may do so by commenting below with your name and institutional affiliation. As with these signatories, affiliations are given for identification purposes only.

Eric Brown, Philosophy, Washington University, St Louis

Taylor Carman, Philosophy, Barnard College, Columbia University

Jon Cogburn, Philosophy, Louisiana State University

John Collins, Philosophy, Columbia University

Keith DeRose, Philosophy, Yale University

John Drabinski, Black Studies, Amherst College

Richard Drayton, History, Kings College London

Tom Eyers, Philosophy, Duquesne University

Branden Fitelson, Philosophy, Northeastern University

Leigh M Johnson, Philosophy, Christian Brothers University

Ed Kazarian, Philosophy, Rowan University

Jonathan Kramnick, English, Yale University

Sally Haslanger, Philosophy, MIT

Bonnie Honig, Political Science, Brown University

Bryce Huebner, Philosophy, Georgetown University

Chad Kautzer, Philosophy, Lehigh University

Mark Lance, Philosophy, Georgetown University

Utz McKnight, Political Science, University of Alabama

Joshua Miller, Criminal Justice, University of Baltimore

Donna Murch, History, Rutgers University

Kathryn Norlock, Philosophy, Trent University

Kathryn Pogin, Philosophy, Northwestern University

John Protevi, French Studies and Philosophy, Louisiana State University

Carl B Sachs, Philosophy, Marymount University, Virginia

Eric Schliesser, Political Science, University of Amsterdam

John Schwenkler, Philosophy, Florida State University

David Livingston Smith, Philosophy, University of New England

Mark Steen, Philosophy, Boğaziçi University

Lynne Tirrell, Philosophy, University of Massachusetts at Boston

Adriel Trott, Philosophy, Wabash College

Eric Winsberg, Philosophy, University of South Florida

Statement by Kirk Sanders, Chair of Philosophy at UIUC

In an email earlier today to faculty and staff of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), Interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson announced the approval of a negotiated settlement with Dr. Steven Salaita, whose offer of appointment as an Associate Professor of American Indian Studies had been revoked last year. Throughout the ensuing controversy, the Department of Philosophy at UIUC repeatedly proved itself a vocal opponent of the revocation of Dr. Salaita’s offer and a strong supporter of academic freedom and shared governance more generally.

Ours was the first unit on campus outside of American Indian Studies to approve a resolution of “no confidence” in the Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees. Several members of our faculty were deeply involved in efforts in the Academic Senate and across campus to seek Dr. Salaita’s reinstatement and to publicly reaffirm the university’s commitments to core principles of academic freedom and shared governance.

While the university remains under AAUP censure as the result of the actions of its administration and Board of Trustees at the time, it is important to note that the key players in the decision to fire Dr. Salaita no longer occupy positions of power at UIUC. The former Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Chris Kennedy, no longer sits on the Board; former President Robert Easter retired; and former Chancellor Phyllis Wise and former Provost Ilesanmi Adesida resigned their respective positions following the revelation that they had used non-university email accounts for university business in an apparent attempt to evade Freedom of Information Act requests, including ones related to the Salaita case.

Now that Dr. Salaita himself has agreed to a financial settlement, the motivation for the academic boycott of UIUC that arose in response to his case would seem to be entirely gone. While the pledge that so many of our colleagues in Philosophy signed (http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/09/over-550-philosophers-now-boycotting-uiuc-over-the-handling-of-the-salaita-case.html) stated in part: “We, the  undersigned,  will  not  visit  the  University  of  Illinois Urbana-Champaign campus until Professor Salaiata is reinstated to the position offered him …,” the terms of Dr. Salaita’s settlement effectively preclude the possibility of reinstatement.

While we respect Dr. Salaita’s decision to settle rather than to continue to pursue the matter in the courts, despite the clear merits of his case, a financial settlement of the sort agreed to leaves many of the core issues regarding the university's commitment to principles of academic freedom and shared governance unresolved in a way that his reinstatement would not. The AAUP report on UIUC suggested that a retraction -- or at least clarification -- of certain comments made by Chancellor Wise and the Board of Trustees concerning "civility" in the infamous mass emails of August 22, 2014, will also be a necessary condition of ending censure. Now that the legal issues surrounding Dr. Saliata's firing seem to have been resolved, one hopes that such a retraction will soon follow.

In the meantime, it is my sincere hope that colleagues in Philosophy across the country and around the world will once again feel comfortable accepting invitations to come and speak on our campus. We’ve missed having you here.

 

Sincerely,

Kirk Sanders

Associate Professor and Chair

Department of Philosophy

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The Salaita settlement and the philosophers boycott

Steven Salaita has settled his suit against Illinois. 

While I was not in any sense the "director" or what have you of the philosopher's boycott, I was a catalyst, so I think I should say something here. 

Unfortunately, there was some inconsistency in my statements: the letter sent to UIUC and BOT officials said "until Professor Salaita is reinstated" whereas many of the blog posts which alerted people to the boycott effort said "until an equitable resolution is reached." On reflection the latter standard seems the right one to me, but people should make up their own minds here.

The last word I think should be directed to Steven Salaita himself, thanking him for the courage he displayed in this long fight. 

UPDATE: Corey Robin finishes his post on the matter in this way: 

As I was finishing up this post, Steven responded to an email I had sent him with the following:

We fought hard.  I tried my very best to represent those invested in the issue with dignity and decency.  And I hope this sort of thing never happens to anybody else.

I would say that Steven did more than try his very best to represent those invested in the issue with dignity and decency. He actually did represent those invested in the issue with dignity and decency. And while I don’t have a crystal ball, I’d be surprised if any university ever tried to pull this kind of stunt again.

 

Update on an update in the McAdams case

UPDATE by Justin Weinberg: 

The copy of the letter of intent to pursue termination proceedings for McAdams, from Richard Holz, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Marquette, which McAdams linked to, was altered to omit some information. This information includes, among other things, the fact that McAdams was the official academic advisor of the undergraduate who illicitly recorded his conversation with Abbate. This (a) reinforces Holz’s point that McAdams knew, or ought to have known, that the student did not drop the course for reasons concerning personal or political beliefs, and was lying or reckless when suggesting otherwise, and also (b) shows that McAdams acquired the information on which he based his blog posts about Abbate in virtue of his role as an official of the university. The full version of the letter from the dean (which does not reveal the student’s identity), is here.

Left unanswered is whose idea it was to record Abbate, or whether the idea was discussed, in advance, during one of the advising meetings between McAdams and the undergraduate.

Original update here. 

#slatepitching John McAdams

This is why ‪#‎slatepitch‬ is a thing (for facile and lazy contrarianism). It ignores the MU admin claim (p 14 of the Holz letter) that the 2008 and 2011 incidents show that McAdams has established a pattern of provoking harassment of female students. 

1) These pieces should always let McAdams speak for himself regarding the 2011 incident, in which he prints the name and email address of an MU undergraduate woman, phones her at home, and then prints how to find her phone number. 

2) This piece neglects Abbate's own take, including her claims as to McAdams' deliberate word choices designed to inflame her harassers.

3) The piece is lazy; it doesn't cite the very relevant piece by Peter Kirstein at Academe. 

4) Or the equally relevant piece by Ira Allen at Academe.

My take: 

1) I think we can and should separate a) civil society / professional discussion (in which we should exercise appropriate critical reasoning, neither too credulous nor too skeptical, but for which the term "due process" is misapplied); and the following, for all of which some notion of "due process" is essential: b) institutional proceedings, in which the AAUP guidelines for due process can be a model; c) civil proceedings and d) criminal proceedings, each of which have their own standards of proof and process.

2) I don’t know the provisions of the MU process (which now begins in earnest), but I hope it includes the possibility of outside counsel, AAUP observation / participation, and other such actions, so that it will provide a rigorous testing of the administration’s claims and proposed penalty.

3) It seems to me that what MU's procedure will have to do is decide whether McAdams's claims to "academic freedom" are appropriate, or whether they are misused as an excuse for harassment (or whatever technical term the MU administration will seek to use). I take it everyone agrees AF does not excuse harassment (or whatever term is appropriate here), so the question is whether McAdams's actions fall inside or outside the scope of AF protection, that is, whether they constitute harassment (or the term MU wants to use).

This does nothing to lower my estimation of Brian Leiter

Tweeting about someone he's blocked on Twitter and claiming that the description of someone else's thought was aimed at me: what would you expect from him? It does indicate his obsession with me. 

 

What I think happened, should have happened, and might happen in the McAdams case

WHAT I THINK HAPPENED IN THE CLASSROOM (based on study of the relevant and available documents and accounts). [Slight updates for clarification, in brackets, 21 January 2015; I also recommend people read this blog post by Cheryl Abbate detailing the misogynist hate mail she received as a result of McAdams's action.].

1) During the class there was never a discussion about gay marriage. The point of the class was just to get a basic idea of some contemporary social policies that would violate Rawls’s equal liberty principle ["Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all"]. One student pointed out that a ban on gay marriage would violate Rawls's equal liberty principle [it would deprive a group of people of equal basic liberties] and since Abbate judged this as true and there were more nuanced examples to focus on, she moved on to the next example of a policy that would violate this principle.

2) Another student approached Abbate after class and asked why there was not more discussion of gay marriage.  

3) In a move that has been approved by the vast majority of professional philosophers — and here the disciplinary difference between philosophers and political scientists is I think important to note — Abbate told the student that discussion of gay marriage in a class devoted to Rawls’s equal liberty principle would not be relevant as in her judgment [allowing] gay marriage does not violate the principle [allowing gay marriage does not deprive anyone of a basic liberty compatible with a system of liberties for all]. This is a professional judgment call and McAdams does not have the training or standing to challenge this initial point. 

4) The student then claimed that there is research that shows children who have gay parents “do a lot worse in life." 

5) Abbate pointed out that this was a non-sequitur as gay marriage and child-rearing are not necessarily connected, and further that she would question the research he was referring to, because years of research says otherwise. She also invited him to send her the "research" he was referring to (and Abbate has informed me that he never did this).

6) The student then said “Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.’ ”

7) Abbate then said that "SOME comments are not appropriate and are offensive." At this point, she was informing the student that he did not have an absolute right to say whatever he wanted in an ethics class. She then explained that examples of inappropriate / offensive comments would be sexist, racist, and homophobic comments. Thus she DID NOT equate ALL criticism of gay marriage with homophobia.

 

WHAT I THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED

1) I think the McAdams should not have published his attack on a graduate student at all.

2) If he was unable to restrain himself, he should not have published his attack on a graduate student until he had communicated with Abbate, the Chair of the Philosophy Department, the Dean, the Provost, and the President of the university.

3) In the face of McAdams's attack, the MU administration should have quickly issued a public support of Abbate and a public rebuke of McAdams for violating Abbate's reasonable expectation of mentorship rather than attack from a tenured professor. 

 

WHAT I THINK MIGHT HAPPEN

These remarks attempt to consider three factors: 1) the conventional rights of academic freedom of McAdams, 2) the legal rights under Title VII and IX of students and employees of Marquette to be free of hostile work and educational environments, and 3) Marquette’s legal obligations under Title VII and IX to provide such environments.

Given an assumption that university administrations act mostly in terms of risk management — but that their risks are multiple and sometime orthogonal to each other — I wonder what role their estimation of their risk of reprimand relative to their legal obligations under Title VII and IX is playing in their actions. McAdams has an (academic freedom) right to be cantankerous, but he doesn’t have the (legal) right to harass, and MU is obligated to ensure that he doesn't harass with impunity. That’s the crunch point.

Now, should defenders of academic freedom be worried about the wording and case law and OCR guidance around Title VII and IX? Yes, absolutely. (We should be horrified at the Garcetti lineage of cases too!) But I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water and junk my legal protections against workplace harassment either. McAdams being clever enough to play the edges doesn’t mean I should have to put up with a stalker.

Will MU’s case pass academic critical muster against McAdams, balancing academic freedom qua (conventional) rights of professors and the (legal) Title VII and IX rights of students and colleagues? We’ll see.

As for the purely legal side of things, as MU is a private university there are no First Amendment implications and so McAdams will have to fight his fight purely as a contract law matter; as much as he can claim academic freedom in the court of public and academic opinion, he can’t claim “free speech” in the FA sense of the term.

Marquette's desire to uphold Catholic values is going to be important: I don’t know if McAdams has the contractual right to act in the way he does AND to be employed at a Jesuit university whose basic value is “care for the person.” It would be ironic indeed if he loses because of religious freedom of the institution to enforce its code of values. (I don’t know what he thinks about the Hobby Lobby and such decisions; I imagine he liked them at the time, but that he might not like it at the end of his trial.)

An appeal from Macedonian colleagues

I am very poorly informed about the situation described in this appeal, which I received via an intermediary, but I would welcome discussion of the issues and links to more information. Here is a link to the website of the Embassy of the Republic of Macedonia in the United States.

[UPDATE: a news story on the demonstrations. Another story.]

----

Skopje, December 19, 2014

Deeply troubled by the ongoing abolition of the autonomy of the universities in the Republic of Macedonia, and faced with Government officials who have   been consistently turning a deaf ear to all appeals from the students and professors, we have decided to address you as prominent members of the international academia and to ask for your support.

Namely, over a course of a few years, the Government has imposed legal reforms without any substantial dialogue with the stakeholders in the academia. Each of these reforms has been diminishing our autonomy and has transformed the universities into political instruments rather than educational institutions. The latest draft amendments to the Law on Higher Education will increase the direct interference of the State, i.e. the Ministry of Education and Science, in curricula planning, examining and grading at the Universities, depriving them, finally, of their right to grant diplomas (literally). What is more, it introduces the idea of a compulsory state exam for each and every course taken by the student, one in the second year of the studies and another in the fourth, the organisation and execution of which is to be carried out by appointees selected by the Ministry. The state exam is foreseen for all cycles of university education: graduate, master and doctoral studies. It is a precedent to be found nowhere in the world. In sum, this latest reform will practically strip universities of their right to issue diplomas unless students successfully pass the examinations before the completion of the study cycle.

In less than a month, the student movement Student Plenum, supported by numerous university professors, has organised a number of activities and gone to great lights to make authorities hear their voice. To no avail! Macedonia has witnessed two massive rallies attended by at least ten thousand students and professors. In spite of the protests and the almost unanimous rejection of the proposal by the academic community, the Government has recently unscrupulously moved to swiftly adopt the proposed bill. In the absence of any meaningful opposition in the Parliament, the bill will indeed be passed automatically.

In view of bigger protests and the likelihood of a general strike by the students and the professors, we ask you to support us by any means you find appropriate. You could address your state officials and ask them to appeal and/or exert pressure on the Macedonian Government to cease its brutal final blow on whatever remains of academia in our country. Finally, we would highly appreciate your personal statement of support in reply to this message, one we would like to publicize as part of our campaign which is one of the elements of the overall resistance primarily carried out in the form of protests and appeals to dialogue with the government. 

Signed,

On behalf of the Student Plenum (#СтудентскиПленум), Darko Malinovski and Arben Hajrullahi

and Prof. Katerina Kolozova

 

Prof. Biljana Vankovska

Prof. Igor Jovanoski

Prof. Gordana Popsimonova

Assistant Lecturer Ognen Cemerski

Further points on the McAdams case

[UPDATE: See this post by Cheryl Abbate; compare its directness, clarity, and honesty with the misdirection, obfuscation, and mendacity of McAdams's posts.]

This Volokh Conspiracy post leads to these further points on the McAdams case.

As I understand it, Abbate said that she would not tolerate homophobic comments in class. She did not, however, on my reading of the documents, including her statements here at Daily Nous (which I wish Volokh would have cited in laying out the base facts of the original incident) equate any and all criticism of gay marriage with intolerable homophobia, only certain statements in that regard. This is an important distinction in my eyes, and one that puts McAdams in the position of spreading a falsehood when he says or insinuates that she banned all criticism of gay marriage on the basis of its supposed homophobia.

A second point about the Volokh piece is its erasure of the duty of mentorship to a graduate student in Volokh's account. It becomes criticism of one colleague by another. But this flattens out the professor / student relation between McAdams and Abbate.  

As to the proper response by Marquette, in my Open Letters I called for Marquette to publicly support Abbate (which they have only indirectly and belatedly) for university officials to try to reason with McAdams:

As for the behavior of Professor McAdams, I hope that members of your administration, such as Dean Holz or Interim Provost Callahan, will find the time to discuss with him what obligations a decent respect for the trust placed in us as faculty members entails with regard to mentoring graduate students, rather than using them callously and carelessly as a pawn in his political fulminating.  

As to Marquette's current course of action, I find it troubling, but I would hazard a guess as to their motivations, based on the assumption that university administrations use a risk management rationality: MU may think that their risk of losing a Title IX suit or OCR complaint claiming that they did nothing when a student was subject to the creation of a hostile work or education environment was greater than the risk of their losing a wrongful discipline case by McAdams, as well as the cost to their reputation if people cast this as an academic freedom issue and the cost to their donor base by alums who take McAdams's side.

The above is an explanation, not a justification. The university's risk management calculations might converge with normative values if one feels that a claim of academic freedom does not excuse the creation of a hostile environment for a student.

Finally, there is the question of what we are to make of McAdams's role in the hate mail that Abbate received? Can McAdams just say "hey, I didn't write that hate mail"? This seems a recipe for enabling harassment by proxy, for clearly none of the vile creatures harassing Abbate would ever have heard of her if it weren't for McAdams.

7 points with regard to John McAdams of Marquette

1) McAdams violated Abbate's academic freedom (which involves teaching / class management).

2) He violated Abbate's right to mentorship by professors. 

3) He should have realized Abbate would get hate mail; he’s a professor of political science who lists “public opinion” as a speciality, so he should have known that the foreseeable effects of his actions would be hate mail directed to Abbate.

4) The Open Letters did not ask that MU sanction him, only that MU officials publicly support Abbate, and that they talk with McAdams to explain professional ethics. Quoting the second one:

As for the behavior of Professor McAdams, I hope that members of your administration, such as Dean Holz or Interim Provost Callahan, will find the time to discuss with him what obligations a decent respect for the trust placed in us as faculty members entails with regard to mentoring graduate students, rather than using them callously and carelessly as a pawn in his political fulminating.

5) If McAdams feels his academic freedom is being impinged upon by MU’s actions, then he should contact the AAUP. 

6) His claiming academic freedom for his blogging entails the freedom of members of the academic community (in this case the 415 signatories of the first Open Letter) to condemn his actions.

7) I wish Cheryl Abbate all the best in the rest of her studies and in her professional career.

Open Letter on the University of Oregon graduate union strike

I am really proud to co-sign this Open Letter by Mark Alfano on the University of Oregon Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation strike. (See here at Lawyers Guns and Money and here at Daily Nous for background. Also here for a GTFF cease-and-desist letter on the threat to international graduate students.) Others can co-sign by commenting below. 

=== 

President Scott Coltrane [email protected]
Provost Frances Bronet [email protected]
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Doug Blandy [email protected]

Dear Interim President Coltrane, Interim Provost Bronet, and Vice Provost Blandy: 

I write to express my concern for the state of academic integrity at the University of Oregon. In recent days, I have been troubled to learn that the university administration has undertaken a series of actions related to the strike by the local graduate student union (GTFF 3544) that are potentially illegal and obviously immoral. These include intimidating undergraduate students regarding their federal financial aid, diluting academic standards by issuing final grades based on work that was done before the strike started (in some cases less than 50% of graded assignments), threatening the visa status of striking international graduate students, and making final examinations and end-of-term assignments optional in multiple departments (including, to my knowledge, philosophy, linguistics, and ethnic studies).

Such scorched-earth policies are myopic and nihilistic. And in light of Dr. Coltrane’s own published work on the importance of paid parental leave, the administration’s behavior towards its own graduate students who are striking because they want two weeks of parental leave per year is deeply and shockingly ironic.

I urge you to give the graduate students what they’re asking for, cease the morally repugnant behavior, and manifest a little integrity.

Mark Alfano
Assistant Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Oregon

John Protevi
Phyllis M Taylor Professor of French Studies
Professor of Philosophy
Louisiana State University

Affiliation provided for identification purposes only and does not imply speaking on behalf of our respective institutions.

Open Letter to Dr Michael Lovell, President of Marquette University (updated)

UPDATE: Sat 22 Nov 6pm. President Lovell has released a Letter to the MU community. Although it doesn't name names, it is nonetheless a good sign to see this:

We are dedicated to uphold academic freedom and to maintain an environment in which the dignity and worth of each member of our community is respected, especially students. We deplore hatred and abuse directed at a member of our community in any format. Please know that we listen to any member of the campus community who expresses concerns alleging inappropriate behavior. As stated in our harassment policy, the university will not tolerate personal attacks or harassment of or by students, faculty and staff. To be clear, we will take action to address those concerns. ​

Let's thank President Lovell, while adding that we hope clear action is soon forthcoming.

-----

Dr Michael Lovell
President, Marquette University

Dear President Lovell,

I write you today with a matter of some urgency. According to the 6th update to this story, http://dailynous.com/2014/11/18/philosophy-grad-student-target-of-political-smear-campaign/#comments, Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy graduate student at Marquette, has begun receiving hate mail as a result of this Fox News story: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/21/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/. 

The harassment Ms Abbate is receiving in inimical to the values not only of American universities in general, but of the Jesuit tradition in particular (speaking as a Loyola University of Chicago graduate), and I ask you to take immediate action in the form of a public statement deploring this harassment and affirming Marquette’s commitment to the welfare of its graduate students. 

As you may be aware, these threats can be traced to the unprofessional behavior of Professor John McAdams of the Political Science department at MU, who, in connivance with a student who provoked a confrontation with Ms Abbate after class, while both surreptitiously taping the conversation and lying about that fact, betrayed a basic commitment to mentorship and guidance of students by blasting Ms Abbate on his blog: http://mu-warrior.blogspot.in/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html. 

If I may, I would direct your attention to these comments on an Open Letter I authored on the situation, which has garnered over 200 signatures in a few short days: http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/11/open-letter-in-support-of-cheryl-abbate.html

"Please add my name to this. Even if everything printed were true and the grad student said and did everything attributed to her ( which I do not grant) this response -- public calling out, exposure to public condemnation, political labeling,-- by a faculty member violates every expectation of graduate training and collegiality. It is a betrayal of the trust invested in faculty to mentor and guide students, not to make of them casualties in larger battles whether inside or outside their institutions. Bonnie Honig, Professor of Political Science, Brown University."

"I support this letter and am so pleased to see how widespread the response has been. Ms. Abbate deserves no less than any instructor, tenured or otherwise, deserves: due process, a resistance to trying a case in the court of public opinion, respect for her expertise, and the professionalism of her colleagues. The kind of news-baiting in which Professor McAdams has engaged is a disservice to students and faculty alike. I suspect he would not enjoy anyone vilifying him without first attempting to gather the facts in the case. In addition, the student who recorded a conversation without Ms. Abbate's consent, and who denied he was doing so, should be apprised of the law, as well as of general principles of ethics. I am a graduate of a Jesuit institution (Fordham University) and have studied Jesuit history. This developing situation is absolutely not in keeping with rational interpretation of the _Constitutions_ or later interpretations of "Our Way of Proceeding." Kathleen M. Comerford, Department of History, Georgia Southern University” 

As for the behavior of Professor McAdams, I hope that members of your administration, such as Dean Holz or Interim Provost Callahan, will find the time to discuss with him what obligations a decent respect for the trust placed in us as faculty members entails with regard to mentoring graduate students, rather than using them callously and carelessly as a pawn in his political fulminating.

Yours respectfully, 

John Protevi (PhD, Philosophy, Loyola University Chicago, 1990)
Chair, Department of French Studies
Phyllis M Taylor Professor of French Studies
Professor of Philosophy
416 Hodges Hall
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge LA 70803 USA

In which I correct an obvious error by Professor John McAdams and wish him many fruitful conversations

In this recent blog post Professor John McAdams makes a blunder, which I correct in a comment left at his place, reproduced here:

---

Professor McAdams, the sentences you attribute to me were instead made by Justin Weinberg, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina, and author of this post at his blog, Daily Nous: 

That you make such an elementary mistake does not lead one to confidence in the care with which you compose your writings on this issue.

I am however the author of this Open Letter, which now has over 200 signatories: 

I direct your attention to the first comment, by Bonnie Honig, Professor of Political Science at Brown University:

Please add my name to this. Even if everything printed were true and the grad student said and did everything attributed to her ( which I do not grant) this response -- public calling out, exposure to public condemnation, political labeling,-- by a faculty member violates every expectation of graduate training and collegiality. It is a betrayal of the trust invested in faculty to mentor and guide students, not to make of them casualties in larger battles whether inside or outside their institutions.

I found this comment instructive as well:

I support this letter and am so pleased to see how widespread the response has been. Ms. Abbate deserves no less than any instructor, tenured or otherwise, deserves: due process, a resistance to trying a case in the court of public opinion, respect for her expertise, and the professionalism of her colleagues. The kind of news-baiting in which Professor McAdams has engaged is a disservice to students and faculty alike. I suspect he would not enjoy anyone vilifying him without first attempting to gather the facts in the case. In addition, the student who recorded a conversation without Ms. Abbate's consent, and who denied he was doing so, should be apprised of the law, as well as of general principles of ethics. I am a graduate of a Jesuit institution (Fordham University) and have studied Jesuit history. This developing situation is absolutely not in keeping with rational interpretation of the _Constitutions_ or later interpretations of "Our Way of Proceeding."

Kathleen M. Comerford, Department of History, Georgia Southern University

----

Finally, I do not wish you to "shut up"; I hope you continue talking, and wish you a very pleasant conversation with the Dean, Provost, and perhaps even President of Marquette.

UPDATE 1: Th 20 Nov, 9:48pm: McAdams has corrected his blogpost, though without noting the original error, nor approving the rest of my comment. If the former is only mildly problematic -- though a respect for blog tradition would recommend noting the original mistake along with the correction -- the second is more troubling. I will give him the benefit of the doubt however so I've left another comment with the substantive claim, adding something to the effect of the following: 

Professor McAdams cherry-picks some extreme correspondence and then claims they reveal the "id of the politically correct." I counter by citing the calm and reasoned criticisms of Honig and Comerford. I invite Professor McAdams to engage their claims to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking his opponents, a mild form of straw man.

UPDATE 2, Friday 21 November, 7:25am: In this new post, Professor McAdams indulges yet again his penchant for cherry-picking the words or actions of graduate students he doesn't like. Yet he has not approved my comment on the previous post, sent to him well before he authored this one, in which I ask him to engage the arguments of professors. We'll see if he ever approves any more of my comments.

UPDATE 3, Friday 21 November, 1:07pm: Professor McAdams has approved my comments. I thank him for that and hope that he will accept the invitation to engage substantively with the criticisms of Honig and Comerford. 

Open Letter in Support of Cheryl Abbate

Dean of the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences, Marquette University, Dr. Richard C. Holz, [email protected]

Interim Provost, Marquette University, Dr. Margaret Faut Callahan, margaret.callahan@marquette.edu.

Dear Dean Holz and Provost Callahan:

I write to express my deep concern about the behavior of Professor McAdams and to offer my support to Ms Abbate over the events reported here: http://dailynous.com/…/philosophy-grad-student-target-of-p…/

The one-sided public attack on a graduate student by a professor over classroom behavior is a threat to academic freedom. It does not appear to me, from reading the blog post of Professor McAdams, that he made any attempt to get Abbate’s side of the story. Instead he took up the motivated report of a student and based an attack on Abbate solely on that student’s testimony. http://mu-warrior.blogspot.in/…/marquette-philosophy-instru…

I hope that you will offer your support to Ms Abbate and take steps to ensure that Professor McAdams learns the rudiments of professional behavior in the future.

Yours respectfully,

John Protevi (PhD, Philosophy, Loyola University Chicago 1990)
Chair, Department of French Studies
Phyllis M Taylor Professor of French Studies
Professor of Philosophy
416 Hodges Hall
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge LA 70803 USA

----

UPDATE: You may co-sign this letter if you wish by commenting to that effect. 

On the Salaita case, once again

1. On the proper interpretation of the AAUP's statements (following the lead of John K Wilson):

The AAUP’s 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” explicitly states that when faculty “speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship." The continuation of that sentence in the 1940 Statement ("but their special position in the community imposes special obligations") cannot be used to justify firing (or "un-hiring") a professor but instead expresses moral ideals for professors rather than conditions enabling disciplinary action, especially unilateral administration action without faculty consultation.

Furthermore, the AAUP's 1970 Interpretive Comments declare that the “obligations” section of the 1940 Statement must be interpreted by incorporating the 1964 Statement on Extramural Utterances, which holds that any extramural utterance, to be punishable, “clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness” for the position and also take into account the professor’s “entire record as a teacher and scholar."

Proper respect for faculty governance entails that it is the faculty who are best positioned to judge a professor's "entire record as a teacher and scholar," not the administration or Board alone.

This is consistent with the AAUP's 29 August 2014 letter, recommending that Salaita be suspended with pay pending formal disciplinary hearings with proper faculty input. 

Further, I think the most an administration should be allowed to do, absent formal hearings with faculty input, is produce the common response: "We disagree with the content of Professor X's speech, and remind people that he does not speak for the University." This is codified in the UI Statutes as follows: "If, in the president’s judgment, a faculty member exercises freedom of expression as a citizen and fails to heed the admonitions of Article X, Section 2b, the president may publicly disassociate the Board of Trustees and the University from and express their disapproval of such objectionable expressions."

2. On the matter of Salaita's status at UIUC

It is not the case that Salaita misinterpreted the UIUC's actions; it is rather the case that UIUC acted in numerous concrete ways toward Salaita as an employee, thus forming the basis of the "promissory estoppel" claim many legal experts (e.g., Dorf at Cornell and Leiter at Chicago) find Salaita to have.

Following proper procedures, a written offer of employment was issued on October 3, 2013 to Professor Steven Salaita for an appointment, with tenure, as Associate Professor. This offer followed all the standard procedures of a national search and internal approvals from relevant academic units at UIUC, from department to College Dean, to Provost, and up through the office of the Chancellor in the person of Reginald Alston, Associate Chancellor. 

Furthermore, subsequent to Professor Salaita's acceptance of the offer, UIUC scheduled him to teach classes, paid moving expenses, entered him into the payroll system, sent the IT people to inquire as to his computer needs, and invited to the Chancellor's new faculty reception.  In addition, these were also actions UIUC took with all the entering members of the new faculty cohort in 2014 and preceding years, all prior to final Board approval, which, by the actions of the University, have to be considered pro forma.

3. On the question of the "civility" standard

The objectionable nature of the introduction of the civility standard is two-fold: a) that it is much weaker than that of "hate speech" and b) that it is given to the administration alone to judge "civility."

With regard to a) I isolated "civility" from the fog of the statements by the Board and by Wise, because it is the dangerous part of what they say. When an administration effects a power grab by lowering the standards enabling their unilateral action, it makes no sense to waste time talking about the standards that are already accepted; the danger lies in the lowering of the standards. 

With regard to b), the unilateral nature of the administration's judgment of civility conflicts with faculty governance.

4. On the exploitation of a loophole by the UIUC administration

I propose a thought experiment. Suppose it were the case that the LSU Board made a miscalculation and that there was no quorum at the meeting in which my tenure was approved. Suppose further that my political enemies then presented a case, based on my extramural speech, for my unfitness as a teacher, and then pressured the Board to summarily dismiss me, claiming my tenure rights to be non-existent because of the recently discovered procedural error. Suppose further that the Board bought that argument and dismissed me, without possibility of internal appeal, leaving me only with recourse to the legal system.  

I think it fair to say that in such a scenario I would expect support from my colleagues, decrying the crass and petty legalisms of the maneuver of my enemies and the cowardice of the administration, and that my colleagues would demand an internal university procedure with adequate faculty representation as to the question of my fitness to teach. This is, again, the AAUP's 29 August 2014 position: Salaita should be suspended with pay and an internal university procedure be convened.

5. On the larger question of academic freedom

The courts allow universities to offer academic freedom to their employees, over and above our First Amendment rights, as incentives for recruitment and retention. That is to say, universities can, but need not, offer immunity from summary dismissal and other forms of unilaterally imposed economic sanction to their employees for their extramural speech, save in the case of an properly run disciplinary procedure with adequate faculty representation.

Thus defending academic freedom falls to the faculty; it is our obligation, should we wish to maintain the consensus among administrators that academic freedom is indeed a valued benefit to us – and to the society at large -- to fight any and all violations of it, no matter the content of the speech. And I think this holds especially for those cases in which administrations seek, by means of petty legalistic loopholes, to cut faculty out of our rightful place as a necessary component in any procedure aimed at judging the fitness of a colleague on the basis of that colleague's "entire record as a teacher and scholar."

It should go without saying

but I'll say it anyway: whatever criticisms I have of the PGR, I won't ever fail to acknowledge that Brian Leiter's work on the Salaita case is admirably clear, informed, and important. 

Today's post is no exception: 

Prof. Salaita was, in person, exactly as he seemed at his Urbana-Champaign press conference:  friendly, warm, and admirably composed and cheerful considering the terrible ordeal of persecution he has been through.  The real person is a powerful counterweight to the campaign of demonization to which he has been subjected.  It clearly helps that he has a strong sense of moral purpose....   

The summary dismissal of Professor Steven Salaita from a tenured faculty position at the University of Illinois is the single most brazen attack on freedom of speech in American universities in my lifetime.  It is, unfortunately, not the only such instance, but it demands all our attention because of the shocking and unapologetic contempt displayed by the University of Illinois for fundamental constitutional values.

See also, among other places: here, here, here, and here. 

Mike Otsuka on the significance of the UIUC no confidence votes

Mike Otsuka of the LSE has some important reflections on the departmental no confidence votes at UIUC. 

----

We should not underestimate the significance of the 15 Departmental votes of no confidence in Chancellor Wise (and those above her) at UIUC. When parliaments pass motions of "no confidence" on which such votes are modelled, they are declaring that those in command are no longer fit to hold office, and governments fall. These are, therefore, very strong statements from these Departments. Such votes of no confidence in the senior managers of one's own university are rare. Fear of retaliation by one's bosses is an obvious explanation. Another explanation is that even if one strongly opposes someone's actions, one might not think they rise to the level of a resigning offence.

It may not surprise many that the Department that voted to hire Salaita (American Indian Studies) passed a motion of no confidence, or that all the other Departments in the Race, Ethnicity, Indigeneity, and Gender grouping joined them. But I was surprised to see how far beyond these Departments the votes of no confidence have radiated. Philosophy, for example, does not spring to mind as a natural ally of Race, Ethnicity, Indigeneity, and Gender. But they were one of the first to join AIS in voting no confidence. It's also significant that two Departments in large and traditional disciplines -- English and History -- passed motions of no confidence.

The Departmental votes of no confidence haven't yet extended beyond the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. But they already extend a fair distance within that College, which is at the core of the University. It was, recall, a vote of no confidence of Harvard's equivalent Faculty of Arts and Sciences that led to Larry Summers's resignation. The vote against Summers wasn't overwhelming: 218–185. And, significantly, it was by secret ballot of all members of the Faculty, with no individual Departments having to put their necks on the line.

Members of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences have an especially strong grievance against their Chancellor, given the manner in which she bypassed their Dean, in violation of University Statutes. (See link in first comment below.) It is not over yet. Let's hope that there are more Departmental votes of no confidence to come. Perhaps we are not far from the point where the level of no confidence among LAS faculty in Chancellor Wise reaches that of Harvard's FAS in Larry Summers.

Open Letter by Nathan Brown to colleagues at UIUC: "I write to urge your departments to begin organizing a faculty strike for the winter semester at UIUC."

September 11, 2014

Dear Colleagues at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

I am writing to you in your capacity as heads of those departments that have voted “no confidence” in Chancellor Wise, following her decision to terminate Dr. Steven Salaita’s appointment as a tenured faculty member at UIUC. I admire the resolution of your respective departments in issuing these no-confidence votes: it is never easy to reach consensus on such issues among faculty with widely differing views on constitutional law, middle east politics, and the governance of the university. It speaks to the clarity of this case, and of the wrong that was done to both Dr. Salaita and your university, that fourteen UIUC departments have issued unified no-confidence votes stemming from this breach of academic freedom and the norms of shared governance. 

Today the UIUC Board of Trustees voted to uphold the Chancellor’s decision to terminate Dr. Salaita’s position. Despite the strong support for Dr. Salaita that has emerged since his firing, despite the condemnation of Chancellor Wise’s decision by prominent academic organizations, and despite a growing boycott of UIUC in support of academic freedom — despite all of this, the Board’s decision today comes as no surprise. “Stay the course” has become the unwavering motto of university administrations in times of crisis, particularly when managing the fallout of unpopular or unjust decisions. At UC Davis, where I was Assistant Professor of English from 2008-2014, the pepper-spraying of student protesters in 2011 drew international condemnation. The administrative response to this incident followed the same playbook as that which now appears to guide your Chancellor. Investigations were called for, meetings for dialogue and conversation were convened, and the matter made its way through the Academic Senate. But at the end of the day, and after some apologies, what emerged were new guidelines for managing student protest that were more restrictive than those in place before. A protocol was established that implicitly warranted future violations of free speech and the right to free assembly on campus. I fear the same outcome at UIUC. Already, a Special Committee of the Faculty Senate has called for a protocol specifying the role of the administration in faculty hires, a measure which may open the door for further interference by donors and senior administration, rather than closing that door and reestablishing the power of faculty over hiring decisions.

The problem that we face as faculty is that when shared governance is violated by upper administration with such catastrophic results, recourse through normal channels of complaint and investigation too often fails to correct the violation. In short, it alarms me that the case of Dr. Salaita’s unjust firing may follow such channels, and in the end the injustice will nevertheless be upheld. It alarms me that he will eventually be offered a settlement by UIUC’s legal team, have no choice but to take it, and that will be the end of the matter. It seems imperative that faculty make manifest our uncompromising refusal to accept unacceptable decisions by the administrations of our universities: decisions that compromise the very nature of the institutions at which we teach. It is important that we write letters on behalf of Dr. Salaita, that we organize petitions, boycotts, and no-confidence votes in support of his reinstatement. But when these measures are ignored, I think we are left with no recourse but to refuse to work for an institution that overrules shared governance, violates academic freedom, and makes a mockery of respect for its faculty.

It is under these conditions that I write to urge your departments to begin organizing a faculty strike for the winter semester at UIUC. Such an action could rally around one clear, simple, and just demand: until Dr. Salaita is teaching at this university, we are not teaching at this university. 

I have no doubt that considerable obstacles will have to be overcome in organizing such an action, and that it will face significant logistical challenges. But I also have no doubt that, short of a faculty work stoppage, Dr. Salaita’s termination will remain a fait accompli, a decision upheld by the Chancellor, the UI President, and the Trustees against all internal and external pressure. On the other hand, a determined strike carried out even by those departments which have already voted no-confidence would pose an insurmountable problem for the university, which would have to be answered by administrative action. I believe that if the single demand of Dr. Salaita’s reinstatement were insisted upon with consequences that became inescapable, that demand might be met. 

I also believe that a faculty work stoppage on this basis would draw broad support, nationally and internationally. Indeed, the violation of academic freedom in this case is so flagrant and so publicly visible, the demand for the reversal of that violation so clear, that UIUC has an important opportunity to take the lead in ensuring that such violations do not become the norm. If you agree that further action must be taken on this case, and that a work stoppage presents the most forceful and consequential means of insisting upon Dr. Salaita’s reinstatement, a faculty strike support committee of supporters outside of UIUC could be organized to help you carry out this action and to support it nationally and internationally. 

Doubtless conversations about this possibility are already taking place at UIUC. I write simply because I know of no other efficacious route, at the moment, to pledge my support for consequential action. My hope is that faculty around the country can come together in helping your departments insist that administrative violations of shared governance and academic freedom are not only unacceptable, but also that they will not be accepted. 

Sincerely,

Nathan Brown
Assistant Professor of English
Concordia University, Montréal

Steven Salaita: "The answer is in this room. It would be one of the greatest honors of my life to work here"

I don't think I'm unique when I say I was motivated to join the #boycottUIUC movement for two reasons. 

1) I support academic freedom and faculty governance, the issues raised by the #Salaita case, and it's just wrong of Wise, Easter, Kennedy and the others to endanger a century of work on those issues; we follow some giants in Dewey and Lovejoy, founders of the AAUP. 

2) I support the person, Steven Salaita, even though I had never met him or heard him speak or read his work when it all started. Because it's just wrong to hurt a person the way he's been hurt by Wise, Easter, Kennedy, and the others -- endangering his career, keeping him from what he loves doing, stopping his life's work, all to curry favor with rich people.

But it's also very good to be able finally to hear from Salaita, the person at the center, the person we support along with the issues, for he sounds like someone I would be proud to have as a colleague, someone who is committed to his craft, his teaching and writing, and someone who is handling a terrible amount of pressure with wit, grace, and courage.

Partial evidence for this claim can be found at 43:30 of the clip. It forms the title here. It's in response to the question "after all this, why do you want to work here?"

 

Over 550 philosophers now boycotting UIUC over the handling of the Salaita case

Monday 8 August, 2014

Board of Trustees
University of Illinois

Dr Phyllis Wise
Chancellor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Dear Members of the Board
Dear Chancellor Wise

Please find attached a pledge by 550 philosophers to, at the minimum, refuse visits to UIUC; some will no doubt go further and refuse to write promotion and tenure letters, refuse to recommend students, and pursue other means at their disposal to isolate the University as the result of the actions of Chancellor Wise.  We join thousands of other academics in many disciplines in making this stand; we will not waver and are committed to this for as long as necessary. Our signers come from big and small institutions; they are established figures and brave early career folks; they come from the US, Canada, the UK, France, Austria, and a number of other countries. 

We ask that you reverse the ill-considered decisions and statements of 2 August and 22 August, and instead affirm Professor Salaita’s offer, which was given and accepted in good faith. Vital principles of academic freedom and faculty governance are at stake and so the case is being very widely discussed all across the academic world. 

Academic freedom has immeasurably enriched American society by offering room for vigorous and spirited debate. By making the decisions you did, you have damaged a great tradition in American civic life and grievously harmed the reputation of the university, which until now had been among the greatest in the country. 

It is not too late to undo the harm you have done. By reversing course and doing the right thing here in the Salaita case, your role in affirming this great tradition will be long remember and celebrated. 

Respectfully yours, on behalf of the signatories

John Protevi
Chair, Department of French Studies
Phyllis M Taylor Professor of French Studies
Professor of Philosophy
416 Hodges Hall
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge LA 70803 USA

As with all the other signatories, my affiliation is here given for identification purposes only and does not imply I speak as a representative of my institution.