Civility, One Chair to Another

Jean O’Brien, professor of history and chair of the American Indian Studies department at the University of Minnesota, sent an email to Chris Kennedy, chair of the University of Illinois Board of Trustees and son of Bobby Kennedy, about the Salaita affair.

I reproduce the exchange here, unedited.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Chris Kennedy <chris@northbankandwells.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Steven Salaita
To: Jean O’Brien <obrie002@umn.edu>

You were not brief enough

Christopher G. Kennedy
E – chris@nbandw.com / chris@northbankandwells.com
O – (312) 527-7503
C – [REDACTED]

————

On Sep 7, 2014, at 2:37 PM, “Jean O’Brien” <obrie002@umn.edu> wrote:

Dear Trustee Kennedy:

I will be brief: please reverse your cowardly decision to “un-hire” Steven Salaita in the name of justice, humanity, civility, and in defense of academic freedom. Your actions have already damaged your great University so deeply that it is difficult to imagine reversing that damage, but this would be one small step. The world is watching. If you take seriously your capacity as a trustee, then please act in compliance with the expectation such a position demands of you.

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. The actions of the University demonstrate in no uncertain terms that I never made a better decision than to turn that offer down. I only hope that the stellar program he has painstakingly built will not be completely undone.

Jean O’Brien
Professor, Department of History
Chair, Department of American Indian Studies
University of Minnesota

Co-Founder, Native American and Indigenous Studies Association

Co-Editor (with Robert Warrior) of Native American and Indigenous Studies

Civility, one chair to another.

This is not the response of a highly professional administration in control of itself. This is the bitter voice mail of a peevish lover drunk-dialing in the middle of the night.

As I’ve been saying, the leadership of the University of Illinois is unraveling.

Update (9:50 am)

Henry Farrell emails Chris Kennedy this morning:

I understand you like brief emails so just one sentence – you have a chance to mitigate the terrible damage that is being done to your university’s academic reputation, and I respectfully suggest you take it.

57 Comments

  1. mark levine September 8, 2014 at 9:13 am | #

    Was Kennedy just dumb enough to give out his cell number to the world? Should we start texting him?

    • Lynne September 8, 2014 at 9:26 am | #

      He probably isn’t the one who leaked this exchange.

      • Rahul (@rlpkamath) September 8, 2014 at 10:13 am | #

        Yeah, the phone numbers should be redacted in this blogpost.

    • Ash September 9, 2014 at 4:03 pm | #

      I will if you will. I see the number has been redacted, but if anyone has it, feel free to share via twitter.

  2. Lynne September 8, 2014 at 9:25 am | #

    Wow, how rude, and how unprofessional.

  3. opus131 September 8, 2014 at 9:31 am | #

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

    • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 9:46 am | #

      See, there you go. Actually, calling the actions of the board ‘cowardly’ is perfectly civil. Calling him personally a ‘chickenshit little bastard’ or something like that, is uncivil.

      Being civil doesn’t mean refusing to criticize. It means you have to criticize in a civil way. Otherwise, you aren’t allowed to characterize an act which really *is* cowardly as such. Even if you don’t think the board’s actions were cowardly, you have to allow for the possibility that they were; and it is someone’s perfect civil right to venture the possibility.

      The alternative is that when someone in power uses norms of civility to subvert civility – as in this case, not to mention very very often in government and other powerful institutions – you aren’t allowed to call it what it is, or even venture the possibility.

      So are civility police saying that it is theoretically *impossible* that the board acted in a cowardly manner, or that it didn’t, in fact, act that way?

      • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 11:24 am | #

        In fact this whole episode is yet another illustration of a key insight of Corey’s thesis about conservatism, namely that said ideology is not really gradualist and worshipful of supra-legal mores and traditions, built up over many years. In practice, it is a movement which smashes those norms. It is legalistic above all: ceteris paribus, it’s thoroughly *hostile* to ‘unwritten law’, custom, etc. There are so many examples (beyond U of I) that I would rather people simply allow the examples to flood into their heads (but for one, since we have a Fed prosecutor involved in this situation, would be the Bush admin.’s frank politicization of the fed prosecutor system). The phemon is, precisely, exploiting an opponent’s reasonable expectation of civility and recognition of norms to make a power grab. To hear calls from the perpetrators for ‘civility’ is almost nauseating. (see, I’m being civil. ‘Almost nauseating)’

    • Andrew Miller September 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm | #

      No, but it is accurate. Forced to choose between civility or truth, any self-respecting academic would opt for the latter.

  4. James Hoff September 8, 2014 at 9:35 am | #

    I don’t know, I think it’s a pretty funny response–I can see myself responding thus to an administrator. And calling someone cowardly is certainly not the epitome of civility either. However, I don’t think Jean O’Brien should have sugar coated her letter–it appropriately and accurately captures the tenor of the conflict. The whole concept that admin and faculty are somehow engaged in the same pursuits and have the same common goals is just fantasy. Administrators deserve no more respect or civility form faculty than politicians do from their constituencies, less even, since administrators are rarely elected. Let’s not play their game and become the civility police.

    • Stepan Petrichenko (@pyotr_kropotkin) September 8, 2014 at 9:54 am | #

      I agree. The response was droll and effective in an immediate sense as a comeback, if ultimately hollow since Kennedy is looking more and more to be on the losing end of this whole affair.

      Jean O’Brien’s sounds to me more like the letter written while half-drunk, even though I agree with it.

    • MDZX September 8, 2014 at 9:56 am | #

      I think the point is that these people are claiming “civility is necessary in discourse” as a club to beat folks having inconvenient ideas with, and then immediately throwing that out as a governing standard for their OWN discourse.

      Not to mention it’s just hilariously bad PR. As Prof. Robin says, this is pretty good evidence that the bureaucrats are losing control over the situation and it’s likely just a matter of time before a gigantic gaffe appears and sinks them entirely.

      • Stepan Petrichenko (@pyotr_kropotkin) September 8, 2014 at 11:34 am | #

        Chris Kennedy didn’t claim ‘civility is necessary in discourse’, did he? This is his first comment, if we can call it that, on the case. Is it even known where he stands on the issue? He hasn’t made any ruling, to my knowledge.

        Besides, his email response was not uncivil. It’s a way to acknowledge a request/complaint while expressing some opposition to the form it took. But the dryly humorous character of the response suggests ambiguity and even the possibility that he already shares Jean O’Brien’s view.

      • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 11:48 am | #

        his email response was not uncivil.

        Whether he agrees with the ruling, or with O’Brian, or not, has nothing to do with whether his response was civil. His response was rude – obviously and deliberately so. And saying that Kennedy’s response is ‘dry humor’ misunderstands what humor is, unless humor can be a wholly mirthless thing.

        I must inquire, dear sir, as to whether you say the thing I have quoted in jest. If so, I respectfully withdraw my own comment

      • MDZX September 8, 2014 at 11:58 am | #

        Frankly, Stepan, I don’t think “his email response was not uncivil” passes the laugh test. That’s certainly his prerogative, of course, but I think one can safely assume that after hearing a month of serious debate over the crushing of academic freedom going on under his own watch, he’d have staked out a contrary opinion on the “civility” issue or acted in some way if he didn’t care to be tarred by that brush.

        Perhaps we should not rush to conclusions – but now’s his chance, isn’t it? We’re all here waiting.

      • NattyB September 8, 2014 at 12:01 pm | #

        @Stepan:

        You write:

        Is it even known where he stands on the issue? He hasn’t made any ruling, to my knowledge.

        Oh yes we do. Although, he does invoke the Royal “we”:

        Our intention isn’t to hurt him financially. We don’t like to see that. We are not trying to hurt the guy. We just don’t want him at the university.

        http://academeblog.org/2014/08/31/christopher-kennedy-speaks-on-the-salaita-firing/

        Also, uh, are you serious?

        It’s a way to acknowledge a request/complaint while expressing some opposition to the form it took.

        Uh, I read it as, “fuck off, self-righteous prick,” but we can agree to disagree in the furtherance of civility.

  5. Benjamin Doherty September 8, 2014 at 9:59 am | #

    She called the decision cowardly. Not the board and not the person.

  6. bangpound September 8, 2014 at 9:59 am | #

    She called the decision cowardly. Not the board and not the person.

  7. Corey Robin September 8, 2014 at 10:27 am | #

    I just redacted Kennedy’s personal cell phone number. I hadn’t caught that the email included any of his numbers. People should know, however, that before I posted this, Kennedy’s unredacted email had already been widely circulated on FB.

  8. David Green September 8, 2014 at 12:14 pm | #
  9. William Goldman September 8, 2014 at 12:16 pm | #

    I may be mistaken here, but what I see is an unsolicited email from someone not connected to the situation under discussion that uses inflammatory, if not necessarily uncivil, language in an attempt to voice an opinion about a controversial issue. The key here is that it is unsolicited: Prof. O’Brien has no dog in this hunt, other than a desire to sway the recipient of her email, and he was unswayed. He also pointed out, with some dry wit that I appreciate, that the email was out of line. He was not out of line to point out that O’Brien is not involved here, and that while she said she was going to be brief, she was what I will call “academic brief.” Which is to say, long-winded, and, I add in parentheses, obnoxious as hell to point out that she could have had a particular job but decided not to bother. For that last infraction, Prof. O’Brien deserves exactly what she received, and much more.

    • Corey Robin September 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm | #

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the philosopher-king of the pre-school set. In Professor Goldman’s world, thou shalt not voice an opinion about a controversial issue unless one is connected to the situation (see, for rebuttal, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail.) In his world, one uses words like “infractions” and “out of line,” which belong in a parochial school for juvenile delinquents or on a football team, and grown-ups get spanked and “exactly” what they deserve. The entire statement reeks of nursery school. With that special sauce of self-importance that only a professor can bring.

      • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 12:37 pm | #

        sorry to step on your response, CR. But notice that O’Brian deserves not only exactly what she got, but ‘much more’. Eager to know what that is, Doktor Goldman.

      • Needs September 8, 2014 at 12:51 pm | #

        And not to mention that Jeani O’Brien is deeply connected to the situation both in that Salaita is in her relatively small field and one of her close collaborators is the chair of the department in question.

    • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm | #

      [suppressing a laugh] Really?! Your comment here is also unsolicited. So do you also deserve rudeness (and ‘much more’ Like what?! Do tell!)?

      Your comment is so full of problems that I will leave it to others to slice it up. Aside from the ridiculousness of objecting to a letter from a colleague because it is ‘unsolicited’, another of the most obvious is this: I don’t know what planet you are on, but it is bizarre to claim that two short paragraphs is ‘long winded’. Your comment here is longer than O’Brian’s formal letter.

      • William Goldman September 8, 2014 at 12:49 pm | #

        The much more I was referring to was the “fuck off” that I am sure Kennedy wrote in his first email, and then had the sense to erase.

        And, please, enough with the Nazi references. I am sure you can do better than that. Especially to someone named Goldman…since you are too cowardly to give your real name.

      • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm | #

        What ‘nazi reference’? Calling you ‘Doktor’? Just because it is a German word? Oh my. I was definitely not alluding to nazis. Guess again.

      • William Goldman September 8, 2014 at 1:08 pm | #

        Ha! I like you, Jonny. Too chickenshit to give your real name, and run the minute someone calls you on your oh-so-subtle Nazi references. Always fun to have someone like you who is brilliant when preaching to the choir, but turns tail at the first sign of disagreement.

        And my degree is not from a German university, so a simple Doctor will suffice.

      • jonnybutter September 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm | #

        Your weird pugilistic framing isn’t appropriate, since this isn’t a physical confrontation. I am also not afraid of rational argument with anyone – if I am bested in a rational argument, that’s good for me because I will have learned something. But you do scare me a little.

    • Corey Robin September 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm | #

      Like jonnybutter, I can’t stop laughing. On a second read of your statement, this: “Prof. O’Brien has no dog in this hunt, other than a desire to sway the recipient of her email.”

      Let’s play this out, shall we?

      Emile Zola has no dog in this hunt, other than a desire to sway the reader of his J’Accuse.

      William Lloyd Garrison has no dog in this hunt, other than a desire to sway the reader of The Liberator.

      Machiavelli has no dog in this hunt, other than a desire to sway Lorenzo de’ Medici.

      Martin Luther King has no dog in this hunt [that really is what people said], other than a desire to sway the clergymen of Birmingham.

      • William Goldman September 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm | #

        The point is not that Prof. O’Brien should be silenced. The point is that her comment to Kennedy need not be answered, and certainly not with the response and civility you desire.

        The rest is simply politics.

      • Anonymous September 8, 2014 at 6:30 pm | #

        “The rest is simply politics.”

        Wait, you’re using “politics” dismissively in writing to a Poli Sci prof, in the middle of a highly political situation? Am I missing something?

    • MDZX September 8, 2014 at 12:50 pm | #

      “The point is not that Prof. O’Brien should be silenced. The point is that her comment to Kennedy need not be answered, and certainly not with the response and civility you desire.”

      Certainly. Kennedy can act the way he pleases. But then that brings up the question: why exactly are these same people explaining away Salaita’s “de-hiring” with words like “civility” when they so clearly care not for the concept? Seems to me that bowing to the will of rich donors and loud political lobbies is rather more the reason.

      • William Goldman September 8, 2014 at 12:57 pm | #

        I agree with you, MD: it was a craven decision and a reprehensible one. I don’t agree with Salaita, but I certainly believe academic freedom means something. My issue is with the entitlement of those who believe that somehow a personal email to a Board member is akin to MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, or Zola, etc, and should be treated as such. I am not defending anything here but Kennedy’s right to nicely tell someone to fuck off when he wants to. And, it was a damn funny response.

      • MDZX September 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm | #

        I am under the impression that Prof. Robin is doing nothing other than pointing out the hypocrisy of those waving the “civility” flag, including Mr. Kennedy.

        I would appreciate being corrected if that is not the case.

    • Robin Messing September 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm | #

      Word count of the body of Jean O’Brien’s letter (not including greeting and sign-off):145

      Word count of William Goldman’s complaint that O’Brien’s letter was long-winded: 167

      Word count of O’Brien’s letter INCLUDING greeting and sign-off: 180

    • NattyB September 8, 2014 at 2:37 pm | #

      Professor’s O’Brien’s real error was speaking whilst not possessing the Conch Shell, right?

    • Nathan J. Robinson September 8, 2014 at 11:01 pm | #

      I never know what people mean by “out of line.” Always seems to be used by people who wish to define the lines themselves.

  10. Joshua Sperber September 8, 2014 at 12:25 pm | #

    I’ve received no replies to any of my emails, which I like to think is because the Board is totally overwhelmed right now.

  11. bor September 8, 2014 at 1:53 pm | #

    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?

    • Donald Pruden,Jr. a/k/a The Enemy Combatant September 8, 2014 at 3:17 pm | #

      “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.”

      Translation: “If you want a job here, fear the reactionary crazies just as the chancellor fears powerful donors and the AIPAC clones. ‘Civility’ [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] equals employment. So shut your Palestinian yap!”

      • bor September 8, 2014 at 5:40 pm | #

        “Translation: “If you want a job here, fear the reactionary crazies just as the chancellor fears powerful donors and the AIPAC clones. ‘Civility’ [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] equals employment. So shut your Palestinian yap!”

        Translation: when somebody doesn’t agree with me, I call him crazy, throw in a cabal and blame AIPAC. Oh, and then I accuse them of racism.

        The funny thing is that you’re being perfectly serious.

  12. Robin Messing September 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm | #

    There may be a certain degree of trade-off between brevity and civility. If, as Trustee Kennedy’s email implies, he wishes to see brevity maximized, then critics of the decision to fire Salaita will just have to settle for sending him emails with the shortest message possible:

    FU

  13. Freddie deBoer September 8, 2014 at 3:19 pm | #

    I keep looking for William Goldman’s dog and I can’t find it anywhere. Anybody seen him? Maybe hiding under the bed?

  14. calling all toasters September 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm | #

    I don’t understand what the point of presenting this exchange might be. O’Brien was less than civil. Kennedy was civil. Kennedy (AFAIK) has made no special claims regarding the necessity of civility in discourse.

    All I gleaned from this was a slight amount of respect for the wit of Kennedy, a man about whom I don’t really care.

    • Donald Pruden,Jr. a/k/a The Enemy Combatant September 8, 2014 at 4:45 pm | #

      “O’Brien was less than civil. Kennedy was civil.”

      Exactly! And that is why “civility” is suspect. Kudos to O’Brien!!

      • calling all toasters September 8, 2014 at 8:38 pm | #

        Civility is not “suspect.” It is simply good manners. It doesn’t change the facts of the case, but lack of it does undercut one’s ability to persuade. It was probably O’Brien’s intent to provide support for Salaita, but her lack of civility provided Kennedy an easy opportunity to ignore her.

        • Donald Pruden, Jr., a/k/a The Enemy Combatant September 9, 2014 at 8:41 am | #

          Kennedy: “You were not brief enough.”

          Translation: “I don’t need your input, so shut up.”

          O’Brien was telling Kennedy that the administration’s actions were damaging the University and that he could help stop it. Kennedy responds, essentially, that she has nothing to say that he needs to hear.

          If that response qualifies as “civil”, whereas O’Brien’s intervention — please re-read it — does not, then civility is a corrosive force that protects power and its poor decision-making from its critics.

      • narciblog September 9, 2014 at 12:59 am | #

        “…her lack of civility provided Kennedy an easy opportunity to ignore her.”

        Right. Because it’s clear he would have been so very receptive to her argument otherwise.

    • Mike September 8, 2014 at 9:37 pm | #

      The opposite of my reaction, which is that Chris Kennedy (whom I’d never heard of) is a dick. My visceral first reaction (resisted) was to send him this email:

      Chris Kennedy,

      To be brief, you’re an assh***.

      Mike

  15. James Schmidt September 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm | #

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

  16. mirandamerklein September 8, 2014 at 4:40 pm | #

    Reblogged this on PrecariLeaks and commented:
    The unraveling leadership of the University of Illinois: Exhibit E(mail).

  17. kr123 September 8, 2014 at 10:02 pm | #

    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.

  18. Judith L. Osterman September 10, 2014 at 1:46 am | #

    To Trustee Kennedy , son of the esteemed Bobby, The tide has turned – abandon your search for clams.

Leave a Reply