The Electronic Intifada 26 September 2014
This is the testimony given by Professor Vicente M. Diaz before the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Faculty Senate on 22 September 2014. Diaz spoke about the matter of Steven Salaita, whose hiring by the American Indian Studies program was formally rejected by the university’s board of trustees earlier this month after a sustained smear campaign by pro-Israel donors, organizations, faculty and students:
My name is Vicente M. Diaz. I am an Associate Professor in American Indian Studies and Anthropology. I am also an affiliate faculty member in History and Asian American Studies. I represent American Indian Studies; in fact, I co-chaired the search committee that recommended the hire of Steven Salaita.
I’m here to express moral indignation and outrage at the University of Illinois Board of Trustees’ denial of Professor Salaita’s hiring.
Far from over, and even further from correct, our leadership’s decision is a wrongheaded and misguided action that has tarnished our university’s reputation among academics who know and understand how academia is supposed to work.
It has also put us in actual harm’s way, some of us more than others. Above all, this administration has willingly placed political expediency and possibly money over academic matters. Indeed, academics is the biggest casualty of our leadership’s dereliction of its duties.
This casualty is most clearly visible and palpably experienced when viewed from our vantage point in American Indian Studies, the originating unit, where the proverbial rubber meets the road.
I begin by addressing a particularly insidious rumor of the sort that can come only from the kind of toxic environment that Chancellor Phyllis Wise has created and maintained.
It is a rumor that I’ve already had to lay to rest twice in private emails, namely, that our unit director, Professor Robert Warrior used his influence and power to hire Salaita, who was a student of his years ago at another university. Warrior did not ask me to do this and is not even aware that I’m doing so.
In fact, Warrior maintained his distance from Salaita’s candidacy, and shame on those of you who are spreading this rumor in order to delegitimize him and my unit.
The fact that I even have to state in public that we did our due diligence, that our process and findings were affirmed at the college, provostial level and even by the chancellor’s own vice chancellors, is itself a shameful testimony into just what kind of environment our leadership has plunged us.
Simply put, this case was a routine academic hire, properly vetted all the way up to where substance matters, and because it concerned tenure, it received additional vetting at the national and international levels.
Contrary to the accolades about her courage and bravado, the only courage that Chancellor Wise needed was to simply tell those donors and lobbyists that the case had been properly vetted and that she stands by the academic process. Period.
For it was actually she and President Robert Easter and the board of trustees who opened the floodgates by, in effect, capitulating to external pressure to block Salaita’s hire, whether or not she based her decision on their interests.
The simple fact is that she involved herself on non-academic grounds and made a decision on the most unscholarly of approaches and in the most clandestine of ways, with the blessings of the board and the president – or was it at their behest? – to indeed block Salaita’s hire on decidedly non-academic terms.
Of course, it is precisely the contention of the thousands of scholars and dozens of academic organizations, departments and disciplines, that the real casualty is academic excellence itself.
The chilling effects are now upon us. And this is on the chancellor, not on Salaita.
Three weeks ago, I received an email from an individual, unknown to me, inviting me to “discuss” the Salaita case at some undisclosed venue in Danville (25 miles east of Urbana).
Even a cursory read of the letter reveals it to be something other than a genuine interest in civil dialogue, as for instance, when its author addresses me – addresses me – as “foaming in the mouth” in support of a “rabid” Salaita, who is further described as “anti-Jewish” in a sentence that also conflates Palestine with Hamas.
Contrary to a well-orchestrated and financed smear campaign aimed at stopping his hire, it is in fact reductive to equate Salaita’s anti-Zionist stance with anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic ideology, or to equate Palestine with Hamas.
Apparently, he has also been charged with siding with ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] even if he had condemned that group in the same period in which he decried Israel’s military assault on Palestinians.
Had Salaita only tweeted about ISIS, I dare say that I would not be standing here today, that he would not have been mistreated so.
There was something especially disturbing in that letter’s urging me to bring to the meeting (way over there in Danville), “some of the Palestinian students” from UIUC. The targeting of this particular group of students should not be trivialized given how the author equates Palestine with terrorism. Nobody can read this letter and conclude that it intends anything other than something sinister passing as an invitation to dialogue.
I received this letter for no other reason than my public defense of Salaita and my disagreement with the university on academic terms. Precisely because the university musters all of its authority and resources so, we have now arrived at the point wherein to publicly disagree with the university is to be virtually cast as a supporter of terrorism, if not a terrorist.
It is bewildering that I have to explain to some that neither I nor Professor Salaita are rabid dogs who hate Jewish people. As for his fitness in the classroom, the preponderance of the evidence show him to be not only a stellar, but also a beloved teacher, one fully capable of subordinating or bracketing his politics in favor of student learning and real critical thinking. Passion, of course, is a prerequisite for compassion, and when combined with the demands and rigors of dispassionate analyses, they become ingredients for cutting-edge scholarship.
My claims here are best grasped on academic grounds, and in view of the negative consequences when academic regulations and sensibilities aren’t adhered to. Also, and quite tellingly, the chancellor has yet to look us in the eye and explain her actions to us in particular.
I seriously doubt that she would ever have taken such an action were this a case of a hire in one of the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), or even in one of the traditional disciplinary departments, rather than American Indian Studies. I do believe she’d have done it to a partner Ethnic Studies unit.
I also think she saw us as collateral damage, but underestimated just how damaging her actions would be for the Humanities and the Social Sciences, which probably accounts for her expressions of regret. But these expressions are way too little and way too late.
In closing, like the heads of the sixteen departments [who voted no confidence in Chancellor Wise], I still don’t have confidence in her words, much less on her abilities to safeguard academic integrity.
And sure as the saying goes, that “an attack on one is an attack on all,” the other side of the coin rings even more true here: that what is good for American Indian Studies as an academic unit is also good for the entire institution.
This principle of unit autonomy is the bedrock of shared governance, which is key to proper academic governance, whose ultimate objective is to safeguard academic integrity and excellence. All other concerns must serve this mission because that is what we do and who we are.
Reclaiming the university
And so, when the chancellor and her supporters on campus urge us to pick up the pieces and move on, their words ring as vacuous, as hypocritical, and therefore as outrageous as the administration’s reasons for targeting and pre-empting Salaita’s academic hire in the first place, and then doubling down by using civility or teaching unfitness as the excuse.
Thus I call upon the Senate to rise and express moral and, if I may coin a term here, academic outrage at the administration’s decision to place political and other considerations above academics.
And if, under this new regime, civility be the condition for expressing academic freedom and excellence, then let the appropriate expression be that of civil disobedience.
Move on? No. Colleagues, the work of reclaiming this university from those who would sell it to the highest bidder under the suspect mantra of civility has only just begun.
Stand up, stand up like Trustee James D. Montgomery, who had the audacity to look at the evidence, and admit he was wrong in initially supporting the chancellor. Stand up for academic integrity and the academic excellence that is staked on it.
Vicente M. Diaz is Associate Professor of American Indian Studies and Anthropology, Affiliate Faculty, History and Asian American Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
- Steven Salaita
- University of Illinois
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- academic freedom
- Phyllis Wise
- Robert Easter
- Robert Warrior
- American Indian Studies
- indigenous rights
- free speech
- civil disobedience
Powerful letter. Thanks for
Permalink Autuph Cahalil replied on
Powerful letter. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks prof for this powerful
Permalink Abraham Mrakpor replied on
Thanks prof for this powerful and moving letter. This afternoon when I finished Weir's 'Against our better judgement' I was filled with something akin to impotent rage. How do you defeat an opponent, so evil, so vile so contemptible, yet almost invincible? Where's the David for the Jews and Palestinians that would defeat this monstrous Goliath of zionism? Diaz's letter gives hope, a clarion call to stand up for humanity. Zionism can and must be stopped. The place to begin is right there in America, especially in the university campuses.
Professor Diaz' testimony
Permalink uh...clem replied on
I wonder what the reaction of the Faculty Senate was to Prof. Diaz' presentation. Was he roundly applauded, roundly booed, or, maybe, just ignored? I see his strong statement as "witnessing", "professing" and not merely "testimony".
Permalink Robin Messing replied on
The Board that runs the Advance Placement program curriculum has taken a stance on "civility". This stance was taken in another context--The school board of Jefferson County Colorado was trying to white-wash American history, but the students rose up to protest the boards attempted brainwashing. Though the AP Board's stance was made regarding another issue, I think it is just as relevant here.
"The organization that oversees the Advanced Placement curriculum, whose history course is being defended by massive, ongoing student protests in a Denver suburb, has now said that it backs those protests.
"The College Board’s Advanced Placement Program supports the actions taken by students in Jefferson County, Colorado to protest a school board member’s request to censor aspects of the AP U.S. History course," said a statement from the College Board released on Friday.
"These students recognize that the social order can -- and sometimes must -- be disrupted in the pursuit of liberty and justice. Civil disorder and social strife are at the patriotic heart of American history -- from the Boston Tea Party to the American Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement. And these events and ideas are essential within the study of a college-level, AP U.S. History course," the statement continued."