Breaking News! Wise to Forward Salaita Appointment to Trustees!

We are getting reports out of the University of Illinois that Chancellor Wise is going to forward the Salaita appointment to the Board of Trustees for a vote on September 11. A group of Gender and Women’s Studies students reports the following:

From GWS Undergraduate Stephanie Skora’s report back on meeting with Chancellor Wise on Monday, September 1, 2014:

The meeting with Chancellor Wise was a success, and we have gained some valuable information and commitments from the Chancellor!

We have discovered that the Chancellor HAS FORWARDED Professor Salaita’s appointment to the Board of Trustees, and they will be voting on his appointment during the Board of Trustees Meeting on September 11th, on the UIUC campus! Our immediate future organizational efforts will focus around speaking at, and appearing at, this Board of Trustees meeting. We will be attempting to appear during the public comment section of the Board of Trustees meeting, as well as secure a longer presentation to educate them on the issues about which Professor Salaita tweeted. Additionally, we are going to attempt to ensure that the Board of Trustees consults with a cultural expert on Palestine, who can explain and educate them about the issues and the context surrounding Professor Salaita’s tweets. It has been made clear to us that the politics of the Board of Trustees is being allowed to dictate the course of the University, and that the misinformation and personal views of the members of the Board are being allowed to tell the students who is allowed to teach us, regardless of who we say that we want as our educators. We will not let this go unchallenged.

Additionally, Chancellor Wise has agreed to several parts of our demands, and has agreed upon a timeline under which she will take steps to address them. The ball is currently in her court, but we take her agreements as a gesture of good faith and of an attempt to rebuild trust between the University administration and the student body. She has not agreed unilaterally to our demands, and but we have made an important first step in our commitment to reinstating Professor Salaita. In terms of his actual reinstatement, the power to make that decision is not hers. This is why we have shifted the target of our efforts to the Board of Trustees, because they alone have the power to reinstate and approve Professor Salaita’s appointment at the University. In regards to the rest of our demands, which we have updated to reflect the town hall meeting, we have made progress on all of those, but continue to emphasize that it is unacceptable to meet any of our demands without first reinstating Professor Salaita.

We have made progress, but we all have a LOT of work left to do. We must organize, write to the Board of Trustees, and make our voices and our presences known. We will not be silent on September 11th, and we will not stop in our efforts to reinstate Professor Salaita, regardless of what the Board of Trustees decides.

Please keep organizing, please keep making your voices heard, and please‪#‎supportSalaita‬!

Also, feel free to message or comment with any questions, comments, or concerns.

Assuming the report is accurate, I can think of two interpretations of what it means.

If the UIUC is thinking politically, it would be an absolute disaster for them to open this can of worms, to act as if Salaita’s appointment is now a real possibility, to raise expectations for two weeks or so, to encourage all the organizing this will encourage (I can imagine the phone calls and emails that will now start pouring into the Board of Trustees), only to have the Board vote Salaita down. From a political perspective, this would be a disaster for the university. The strongest weapon the UIUC has always had is the sense that this is a done deal, that they will not budge, that we can raise all the ruckus we want, but they simply don’t care. Opening the decision up again calls that into question. Where does this line of reasoning lead us? To the possibility that the UIUC Trustees will vote to appoint Salaita on September 11, throw Chancellor Wise under the bus (remember, the Executive Committee that upheld her decision is only comprised of three Trustees, not the full Board)*, and say it was all a misunderstanding wrought by an incompetent chancellor. Who’ll then be pushed out within a year. The advantage of this approach is that it will effectively bring this story to a close. There will be angry donors, but everything I’ve ever read and experienced about that crew suggests that their bark is often worse than their bite. The ongoing atmosphere of crisis and ungovernability on campus is not something any university leader can bear for too long, and this threatens to go on for a very long time.

The other possibility is that the UIUC is thinking legally. One of the many weak links in their legal case was that Wise never forwarded Salaita’s appointment to the Board of Trustees for a vote. She basically did a pocket veto. Salaita’s offer letter stated that his appointment was subject to approval by the Board of Trustees, but Wise effectively never allowed the Board to approve or disapprove. So the UIUC’s lawyers could have decided that the better thing to do would be simply to carry out the full deed.

Many questions remain. Stay tuned. Regardless of which interpretation is correct, we have to operate on the assumption that the first is a very real possibility and that we have a lot of work to do in the next ten days.

*John Wilson reminds me in this post that all the members of the Board did sign a letter supporting Wise’s position, which I had forgotten about.

Update (11:15 pm)

Just to clarify my blog post: Like all of us, I have no idea what Wise and the Board are thinking (though we can assume that they are making this decision together). But while I think we have to be as strategic and smart about this as possible (fyi: John Wilson thinks I’m wrong; he may have a point), and gather as much information as we can, there’s always a tendency in these situations to play armchair strategist, to try and read the tea leaves, to figure out the pattern of power, as if we didn’t have hand or a role in shaping that pattern of power. Particularly when questions of law get involved (in a country of lawyers, Louis Hartz reminded us, every philosophical question is turned into a legal claim.) We have to resist that tendency. We have to treat this announcement, assuming it’s true, as a golden opportunity. To use the next 10 days as a chance to shift the balance of power on the ground. Remember the Board will be meeting and voting on campus. There are students, faculty, and activists on and around that campus. That’s an opportunity. Remember these trustees are individuals who can be called and emailed round the clock. That’s an opportunity. Between now and 9/11 (they really chose that date), let’s be mindful of the constraints, but also be thinking, always, in terms of opportunities.

24 Comments

  1. Kirk Sanders September 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm | #

    As I’ve said elsewhere, Chancellor Wise’s earlier refusal to forward the appointment per the normal procedures has, in any event, already accomplished its likely goal: preventing Salaita from beginning his teaching assignment at the start of the semester and being on campus when the BOT holds its vote.

  2. bor September 2, 2014 at 5:43 am | #

    What I find fascinating about this entire situation is that a proponent of boycotting Israel is being defended by so many other supporters of boycotting Israel. Many of the non-legal arguments being made by these folks are mirror images of the arguments made against their boycott demands.

    I hope the irony isn’t lost on everyone. Imagine what it will look like if Salaita gets the job at UI and then goes back to his old ways re boycotting Israeli academia. Likewise for all of his fellow travelers.

    If nothing else, the Salaita matter has now demonstrated what those of us who oppose boycotts against Israel have always said about the slippery slope and the improper attempts to shut down Israeli academics. Those in support of such boycotts now have to look down at their shoes, kick up some dust and whistle a little tune so as to pretend they cannot hear the truth that is ringing in their ears. Loudly.

    • J. Otto Pohl September 2, 2014 at 5:51 am | #

      I don’t see how there are any similarities between boycotting Israeli state institutions that actively participate in colonialism and apartheid and blacklisting individual scholars who oppose Israeli colonialism and apartheid.

      • bor September 2, 2014 at 10:14 am | #

        Oh my, I guess the irony is lost on some.

        But thanks for the propaganda.

      • Consumatopia September 2, 2014 at 10:31 pm | #

        Heck, there isn’t any similarity between boycotting institutions that participate in an objectionable practice and blacklisting individual scholars who support that practice. The boycott isn’t directed at scholars who are researching the wrong things or reaching the wrong conclusions, it’s directed at institutions and people who materially cooperating with unjust policies.

        If a professor commits a crime (hey, it happens sometimes!) and goes to jail, that’s going to stifle that professor’s research and teaching work. But academic freedom doesn’t somehow imply that professors can’t be sent to jail–only that professors can’t be sent to jail for researching or saying the wrong things.

      • bor September 3, 2014 at 12:18 am | #

        “Heck, there isn’t any similarity between boycotting institutions that participate in an objectionable practice and blacklisting individual scholars who support that practice. The boycott isn’t directed at scholars who are researching the wrong things or reaching the wrong conclusions, it’s directed at institutions and people who materially cooperating with unjust policies.”

        In your opinion. And that’s precisely my point.

        I, for example, reject your statement and claims. So do many other people, including many who are members of the ASA and the MLA, not to mention numerous university presidents. How can anyone defending Salaita and his hostile speech and objectionable, lightweight “scholarship” on the basis that academic institutions must remain a place where unconventional speech may openly exist without threat of retribution to that individual (and therefore institution) advocate boycott? It is rank hypocrisy.

        “If a professor commits a crime (hey, it happens sometimes!) and goes to jail, that’s going to stifle that professor’s research and teaching work. But academic freedom doesn’t somehow imply that professors can’t be sent to jail–only that professors can’t be sent to jail for researching or saying the wrong things.”

        I don’t agree that every single Palestinian professor in a society that offers 89% support for the war crimes their elected representatives led and their combatants committed (http://www.pcpo.org/index.php/polls/114-poll-no-191) should be arrested or boycotted. Apparently you do. One wonders where Palestinian society will find scholars brave enough or even just simply in a position to educate their people not to commit such crimes or about the gravity and immorality of targeting innocent civilians if you shut down their institutions and prevent them from having an intellectual debate with their colleagues in other institutions. I also wonder how you will hear their side of the story in case they wish to explain their position. After all, boycotting them ensures they and their institutions are stifled and research that counters the prevailing views cannot be disseminated, if the universities can even remain open under such pressure.

        Right?

      • Consumatopia September 3, 2014 at 10:34 am | #

        “In your opinion”

        Nope, those were factual claims. Moreover, to demonstrate hypocrisy, you have to show that my actions are inconsistent with my beliefs. Yes, there are lots of academics who’s sympathy for Israel leads them to support absurd positions. I am under no obligation to make my beliefs consistent with theirs.

        “How can anyone defending Salaita and his hostile speech and objectionable, lightweight “scholarship” on the basis that academic institutions must remain a place where unconventional speech may openly exist without threat of retribution to that individual (and therefore institution) advocate boycott?”

        Yes, if someone were advocating boycott for unconventional speech (or speech of any kind), that would be hypocrisy.

        “I don’t agree that every single Palestinian professor in a society that offers 89% support for the war crimes their elected representatives led and their combatants committed (http://www.pcpo.org/index.php/polls/114-poll-no-191) should be arrested or boycotted. Apparently you do.”

        No, there is no honest way to conclude that from anything I have said. Did I say that Israelis should be jailed? Does jail have anything to do with BDS? No to both, I only brought up jail because, under your idiotic logic, no professor could ever be jailed for any action at all.

        Boycotting universities in Gaza because of Hamas actions, while probably a bad idea (and I’m not sure BDS is a good idea, either), is not a matter of academic freedom.

        “After all, boycotting them ensures they and their institutions are stifled and research that counters the prevailing views cannot be disseminated, if the universities can even remain open under such pressure.”

        The boycott ASA endorsed is far more limited than you are implying

        The ASA understands boycott as limited to a refusal on the part of the ASA in its official capacities to enter into formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions, or with scholars who are expressly serving as representatives or ambassadors of those institutions (such as deans, rectors, presidents and others), or on behalf of the Israeli government, until Israel ceases to violate human rights and international law.

        We are expressly not endorsing a boycott of Israeli scholars engaged in individual-level contacts and ordinary forms of academic exchange, including presentations at conferences, public lectures at campuses, and collaboration on research and publication. U.S. scholars are not discouraged under the terms of the boycott from traveling to Israel for academic purposes, provided they are not engaged in a formal partnership with or sponsorship by Israeli academic institutions. The academic boycott of Israeli institutions is not designed to curtail dialogue. Rather, it emerges from the recognition that these forms of ordinary academic exchange are often impossible for Palestinian academics due to Israeli policies. We also recognize that there are inherent difficulties in parsing these distinctions, and that ASA members will want to engage in discussion about guidelines for action.

    • Ben Chappell (@MidWestLeft) September 2, 2014 at 10:20 am | #

      Wise’s pocket veto is an end run around the entire legitimate hiring process at the U. of I. So essentially the head administrator is “boycotting” her own decision-making bodies such as the department that should be empowered to hire its own faculty. This is completely different than boycott as an act of international solidarity.

      • Bor September 2, 2014 at 12:16 pm | #

        You’re missing the point. Salaita’s BDS buddies and fellow Israel-academia boycott supporters are facing precisely the situation they advocate. You’re just justifying it with more of the same propaganda you believe (and sell?), that’s all.

        You are very certain that your cause is just and stifling Israeli academics and institutions is acceptable and required, but when someone from your side of the street – someone who has demonstrably heinous views and “scholarship” that are demonstrably worse than the views and scholarship of many Israeli academics, including those who oppose Israel’s politics or military – gets hammered for his views, suddenly you complain that it’s unjust to stifle an academic because of his views and actions and you and your fellow Israel-academic-boycott supporters yell that it’s a case of unacceptable stifling of freedom of speech and of muzzling critical inquiry and of preventing a range of views to students and of harming the process by which academics may pursue their research, etc., etc., etc.

        Well, if it’s bad and wrong to stifle freedom of inquiry and dissemination of ideas for Salaita, then it’s bad and wrong. Period.

  3. Robin Messing September 2, 2014 at 5:44 am | #

    I’m going to repost something I posted on one of the previous articles because I think it is still relevant. As I said before, I’m not a lawyer, but IF the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel applies ,then forwarding the appointment to the the board will not get the University off the hook legally. The damage to Salaita was already inflicted when he left his old job under the assumption that he was being hired. IF the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is relevant, then I assume that Wise’s lawyers and the lawyers for the Trustees have already informed them that merely forwarding the appointment so it can be formally rejected will not get them off the hook.

    If they know that they can’t evade their legal obligations with a formal rejection then they would be foolish not to choose the first path that you discussed: Hire Salaita and throw Wise under the bus.

    From my previous comment:

    If I were Salaita I would be consulting a lawyer about the relevance of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel

    “In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present.

    Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

    A majority of courts apply the doctrine to any situation in which all of these elements are present. A minority, however, still restrict its applicability to one or more specific situations from which the doctrine emanated, such aswhen a donor promises to transfer real property as a gift and the donee spends money on the property in reliance on the promise.

    With respect to the measure of recovery, it would be unfair to award the plaintiff the benefit of the bargain, as in the case of an express contract, since there is no bargain. In a majority of cases, however, injustice is avoided by awarding the plaintiff an amount consistent with the value of the promise. Other cases avoid injustice by awarding the plaintiff only an amount necessary to compensate her for the economic detriment actually suffered.”

    See also

    http://madisonrecord.com/issues/892-breach-of-contract/218293-illinois-supreme-court-rules-in-kubota-case-promissory-estoppel-is-cause-of-action

  4. David Green September 2, 2014 at 10:14 am | #
  5. jonnybutter September 2, 2014 at 10:50 am | #

    If I were Salaita I would be consulting a lawyer about the relevance of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

    I bet he is doing that, but…

    in a country of lawyers, Louis Hartz reminded us, every philosophical question is turned into a legal claim.

    I also clued into what Louis Hartz did, except I would change the first phrase to ‘In an authoritarian politics..’. What’s the difference between a philosophical question and a legal claim? It is that the Law changes with fashion, and a philosophical question is not supposed to do that. The Law in this country is a political thing which pretends to be dispassionate. For the authoritarian (I’d prefer plain ‘asshole’) mindset, the main point of the law is to legalize certain crimes. The law is seen as essentially a device used to ‘decouple’ ethics from law. To avoid rational discussion on the merits of something (i.e. dispassion) is the point of the law. It’s a cheesy conception of the law, but that’s what we very frequently have.

    agree with Corey: politics is over and above the law in this (and I think many) situations. I mean, how craven and ham-handed was the original move?! Unbelieveable, right? Then the pathetic week or so of stonewalling. When these people want to spank people down, there’s always more than one bird they’re trying to kill, the near bird, and the farther bird. For it (a sharp spanking) to really ‘snap’ the way it’s supposed to, that shock has to cause whimpering. So I guess we’re in that split-moment in which the victim of the spanking (us) decides whether to cry or get mad. If we get mad, what is there to lose?

    The ugly possibility is that this is just one shot in a broader, tougher war, to further dismantle the pesky US public university system. To these people’s way of thinking, the university has a similar function to the law – viz, something which validates their own self-aggrandizement.

  6. Ash September 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm | #

    OK, in order to reach the Board of Trustees, I (and others not in the US) are going to need contact details – emails and phone numbers – of the people we need to be contacting to persuade them to approve Salaita’s appointment. Can we please have some info in that regard?

  7. UIUCFaculty September 2, 2014 at 4:35 pm | #

    I’m a UIUC faculty and the report is wrong. The Chancellor has not said whether or not there will be a vote, and she maintains that he will not be reinstated.

    • freespeechlover September 2, 2014 at 6:16 pm | #

      It looks like they, the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor, want to go to court and have a financial settlement to make Steve Salaita go away. They may have a donor who has offered to pay for the law suit, so they can claim they aren’t using taxpayer funds to do so. I say claim, because they’re still using tax dollars as long as they’re in the managerial roles that they’re in. I’m not sure how it matters to what we need to do to support Salaita and by extension academic freedom in this case.

  8. jonnybutter September 2, 2014 at 6:40 pm | #

    I’m not sure how [a settlement or whether the money is ‘public’] matters to what we need to do to support Salaita and by extension academic freedom in this case.

    I hope it doesn’t end up mattering at all. I hope the academic shunning of UIUC continues.

  9. NattyB September 2, 2014 at 8:21 pm | #

    Make that 4 votes of no confidence. English Dept: https://www.facebook.com/supportsalaita/posts/264345103689826

Leave a Reply