糖心Vlog

Four years later, reframing the Salaita controversy

Ilana Akresh says ending Steven Salaita鈥檚 employment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on the grounds of hate speech was overly simplified  

Published on
August 17, 2018
Last updated
August 17, 2018
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Source: iStock

In the summer and听autumn of 2014, the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign was consumed with the controversy surrounding the potential (and ultimate) un-hiring of Steven Salaita. It dominated campus life, especially for those in the liberal arts and humanities., Salaita was set to start his position in the American Indian Studies program in August 2014 and, in the immediately preceding months, several of on the Israel-Palestine conflict came to light.听

The tenor on campus during that time was such that either you supported Salaita, Salaita鈥檚 work, a faculty union, free speech and academic freedom听鈥 importantly, all bundled together听鈥 or you sided with the administration that was considering revoking his hire. In grouping these five positions as one, anyone who didn鈥檛 support all five had no obvious choice but to stand with the other side.

What鈥檚 clear now is that this two-position framing is dangerously misleading. This has become particularly salient in the context of TheNew York Times听hiring Sarah Jeong to its editorial board. Jeong also had a litany of hateful tweets exposed shortly after she announced her new position. However, there is a way to the remarks and the view they represent while maintaining that she shouldn鈥檛 lose her job听because of them.听

In 2014, I for the local Champaign, IL paper from the anti-Salaita perspective. At the time, my own department was set to pass an inconsequential, yet symbolic, in chancellor Phyllis Wise. They had joined much of the rest of the humanities faculty in their almost unanimous support of Salaita based, in addition to a defence of academic freedom,听largely on the following three premises: that there was nothing worthy of upset in the focal tweets; the hiring/un-hiring was yet another example of the tyranny present in an oppressor (the administration) and victim (faculty) dynamic and Salaita鈥檚 meritorious scholarship should alone secure his position.听

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

My thoughts have since evolved on the complexity of free speech, as the hate speech label has become by the left and the right to silence dissenting voices. If I鈥檓 to be a free speech absolutist, I must be consistent, even with speech I find objectionable.

If I could do it again, I would object to Salaita鈥檚 un-hiring based upon the nebulous and subjective nature of defining hate speech. Although I would take issue with the premises that underlie his defense in a way that levies criticisms even more widely, I would reframe my objections.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

First, Salaita鈥檚 view on the Israel-Palestine conflict reflects the , yet it is a disturbing and gross oversimplification of a complicated issue听鈥 part of a trend on other topics. Further, the reduction of its framing to a conflict between aggressor/oppressor (Israel) and victim/oppressed (Palestine) is consistent with a worldview that , but it does not reflect the complexity of today鈥檚 problems.

Then, the unwillingness of anyone defending Salaita to directly address what was said in the focal tweets is disquieting. Apparently, his opinion on Israel-Palestine is so deeply ingrained in the doctrine of the left that there is no need to engage with the content.

Lastly, in my 2014 letter I said that academic freedom can鈥檛 mean that 鈥渁nything goes鈥 with regards to scholarship. However, this is really a nod to the broader extent to which interdisciplinary units in particular (of which American Indian Studies is one) tend to have ambiguous metrics for what counts as good scholarship, a reality that鈥檚 linked to the in many fields. However, this worrisome problem operates upstream from Salaita himself.

In the end, I still see his comments as an example of anti-Semitic invective that鈥檚 been normalised by the left鈥檚 dominant position on Israel-Palestine, but I can鈥檛 participate in the use of the hate speech label, given how to silence other viewpoints. This clarity is only possible now because the need for free speech has become paramount, even (or especially) for speech to which you may strenuously object.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Ilana Akresh is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.听

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT