Professor fired for criticizing Israel files suit against University of Illinois

[MalaspinaGold]

I refer to the tweet I referenced above where he put "anti-semitism" and "honorable" in the same sentence.

Arguably, he was being deliberately provocative in that statement. There is no suggestion that this was anything but a fairly common rhetorical device. I could understand a computer taking this for an approval of anti-semitism, but an actual human being would have to think first before taking that point of view.

In any case, if tenure was created for some purpose, this was the purpose - to protect unpopular and provocative speach. A university that feels firing is justified in this case should simply abolish tenure.

If there's one thing I hate, it's saying stupid and racist things simply for being provocative and/or edgy. Ayelet Shaked got in hot water for doing the same thing. This is the same reason why Snowstalker is such a scourge to the forum.

If anything, this strengthened the allure of tenure, rather than weakened it.

[muon2]

The professor in question here did not have a tenured position. He had been offered one by the American Indian Studies Program at UIUC, but his offer letter clearly indicated that his position would be subject to confirmation by the Board of Trustees. That's the typical form of one of these offers.

The professor's behavior during the time between the offer and the meeting of the BoT was relevant to the BoT decision. They are not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the academic departments. The BoT felt that confirmation was not in the best interests of the university. As it was the BoT has now voted twice to not confirm the offer to the professor. A copy of the BoT press release is here.

[ag]

The professor in question here did not have a tenured position. He had been offered one by the American Indian Studies Program at UIUC, but his offer letter clearly indicated that his position would be subject to confirmation by the Board of Trustees. That's the typical form of one of these offers.

The professor's behavior during the time between the offer and the meeting of the BoT was relevant to the BoT decision. They are not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the academic departments. The BoT felt that confirmation was not in the best interests of the university. As it was the BoT has now voted twice to not confirm the offer to the professor. A copy of the BoT press release is here.

Well, if they ever are to get another senior hire, they would need to have board approvals in March - at the latest. At this point the university severely damaged its reputation by rescinding an offer at that late stage. It is still, probably,a legal issue to which extent such an unusual behavior is a breach of the implicit contract - there will be many people (department chair, a dean or two, the provost, etc.)  who will have to testify that they assured the guy, board approval was an empty formality. Elizabeth II has the right to veto bills, but if she did, there would be a major constitutional crisis.

Btw, they now claim to have voted against him AFTER he was supposed to have started teaching. They also claim that his statements about Israel are directly related to what he was supposed to teach in the Indian Studies department. This all looks like extremely bad faith to me. If a faculty member is supposed to start teaching before the vote - so, without a contract - as they imply, and if anything he says may be construed as relevant to his job, there is no tenure at UI.

[muon2]

The professor in question here did not have a tenured position. He had been offered one by the American Indian Studies Program at UIUC, but his offer letter clearly indicated that his position would be subject to confirmation by the Board of Trustees. That's the typical form of one of these offers.

The professor's behavior during the time between the offer and the meeting of the BoT was relevant to the BoT decision. They are not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the academic departments. The BoT felt that confirmation was not in the best interests of the university. As it was the BoT has now voted twice to not confirm the offer to the professor. A copy of the BoT press release is here.

Well, if they ever are to get another senior hire, they would need to have board approvals in March - at the latest. At this point the university severely damaged its reputation by rescinding an offer at that late stage. It is still, probably,a legal issue to which extent such an unusual behavior is a breach of the implicit contract - there will be many people (department chair, a dean or two, the provost, etc.)  who will have to testify that they assured the guy, board approval was an empty formality. Elizabeth II has the right to veto bills, but if she did, there would be a major constitutional crisis.

Btw, they now claim to have voted against him AFTER he was supposed to have started teaching. They also claim that his statements about Israel are directly related to what he was supposed to teach in the Indian Studies department. This all looks like extremely bad faith to me. If a faculty member is supposed to start teaching before the vote - so, without a contract - as they imply, and if anything he says may be construed as relevant to his job, there is no tenure at UI.

I know many colleagues at other universities who have been offered teaching or research assignments with the understanding that the BoT has the final formal approval, and that might be after the official start date. It's not unique to UIUC and it was also true for me. I also know colleagues who chose to delay their start until after formal approval. That's pretty rare, and when it has happened it was usually because there were some special requests like extensive lab startup costs. Still any person has the right to ask to delay the start until the approval by the BoT. If a department chair says don't worry about the BoT, then that's a black eye for them not for the university as a whole.