Corey
Robin

Characterizing his actions as “cowardly”, while arguably justified, does not strike me as particularly civil.

In the other post about civility, Robin was very concerned about drive-by attacks of people who may not have spent years acquiring the expertise that others have in their work. Is it possible that O’Brien should not presume to lecture Kennedy on his motives, on what it takes to be a good trustee, about the damage to the university and about things such as academic freedom?

Here’s an alternative that might have been more civil:

“I will be brief: I would be grateful if you would consider reversing your decision to “un-hire” Steven Salaita. In my opinion, this would serve the cause of justice, humanity, civility, and academic freedom. I believe that the board’s steps regarding his hire may have damaged your great University and believe that it will be difficult to reverse that damage, but this would be one small step.

On a personal note, several years ago, I was offered the position of Director of Native American Studies at Illinois that Robert Warrior now performs so ably. That position would have been ideal in many respects but other obligations precluded me from accepting it. Had I led that department, however, perhaps I would have been able to prevent this mess by advising my former protege that his public pronouncements reflect not only on him but also upon those who demonstrate trust in him by offering him a position, including this great university.”

Civility cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

It’s getting to the point where, whenever I hear the word “civility,” I have to restrain myself from dropping an F-bomb.

I wouldn’t expect the President of the Board of Trustees to reply personally to one or another of the emails. The emails don’t seem to be intended to start off a conversation with Kennedy or any of the members of the Board of Trustees–they are to voice their perspective, and the Board might consider that perspective … or not. So the issue is not whether O’Brien “deserved” a reply. Really, if he spent his day replying to these emails….he just can’t do that.

But Kennedy DID reply–and maybe it was “dry wit”, but it struck me as weirdly unprofessional to respond like this to one of so many people. Surely he knew it was going to be shared–so why not just make a public statement in a serious manner? No one is forcing “the guy” (Kennedy) to read the emails, much less respond to them. I can’t imagine how he could be in his role unaware of the damage being done to the university, but that damage isn’t lessened by responding (in fact, virtually everything Wise and Kennedy have done seem almost designed to stoke the fire). I can’t think of any other recent occasion in which so many departments have voiced “no confidence” in their administration, based on one (very critical) event.