Here is a story of a professor, whose tweets got her into trouble.

The professor in question is a feminist, Professor F, sometimes termed ‘radical’ by her friends, colleagues, and academic foes for her uncompromisingly feminist scholarship and her vigorous, no-nonsense rhetorical style, which is well-versed in the demolition of putative rebuttals to feminist theory and keenly honed by vigorous participation in political polemical debate. She has a distinguished record in scholarship, excellent teaching evaluations–from male and female students alike (though some unkind ones did call her “a typical nut-cracking feminazi”), and found, by dint of these accomplishments, a cohort of scholars and students who admire her work.

One day, after reading in the news about yet another atrocity committed on women–perhaps a gang-rape by fraternity or football team members who then broadcast their deeds on social media networks, perhaps an obnoxious radio host leading a cheerleading squad of listeners terming women who use contraceptives ‘sluts’, perhaps a story like the Rotherham child abuse case. Today she is fuming; she is tired and dispirited–all that scholarship, all that debate, and the world continues on its merry misogynistic ways; this is the worst of all possible Groundhog Days–the same abuse, the same mealy-mouthed exculpations, the same offensive, tone-deaf defenses.

She goes to her office, grabs her cup of coffee, and checks into Twitter. Her timeline is abuzz–her friends are talking about the latest case, posting links from journalists and bloggers, all weighing in with their considered opinions. Some even post links from clueless male politicians, offering their usual insensitive, sexist responses to the latest fiasco.

The outraged, intemperate tweets follow:

Days like this, I feel like re-installing Valerie Solanas as my hero. She would have known what to do. The time for just polemics is over.

I mean, who wouldn’t want to re-read the S.C.U.M manifesto all over again and take it way more seriously this time. She might have been right all along.

In case you are wondering: S.C.U.M = Society for Cutting Up Men. And geez, I could send in the subscription fees for that right about now.

“Overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex”? Yes sir, more please.

A few more tweets follow along the same lines.

Unfortunately, more is brewing than just the next cup of coffee in our professor’s office. She has applied for, and–thanks to her outstanding academic record–been accepted for a tenured professorship in the Women’s Studies department at  a prominent mid-western university .  A mere rubber-stamping of the hiring decision by the university’s trustees awaits; moving expenses and administrative details of the new appointment are already being worked out. Unfortunately, the chancellor of the university, having read these tweets, or rather having been pointed to them, and having been contacted by donors who find them ‘anti-male’, ‘demeaning’ and ‘abusive’ and thus, possibly offensive to the male students who might be in her classes (and maybe even to her colleagues), decides to rescind the job offer.  Pleas to reconsider this decision, grounded in defenses of academic freedom, and of the inappropriateness of using pronouncements on social media as being indicative of broader personal and professional commitments, fall on deaf ears.

Professor F and Steven Salaita both need our help. Only one of them is real, the latter. Read this post by Corey Robin, which details the latest developments in his case; in it you will find the email addresses of the Board of Trustees at the University of Illinois to whom you should write, urging the university to rescind its ‘de-hiring.’

Note: This post was first published–with the same title–on samirchopra.com

Posted in

7 responses to “Steven Salaita And The Feminist Professor Who Praised Valerie Solanas”

  1. Meir Alon Avatar
    Meir Alon

    I think that Salaita should definitely get his job back. But this comparison is very wrong. Even the most radical feminist authors and activists have never incited violence as the anti-Israel movement has all over the world. Jews and Israelis suffer from hate and violence in many places these days by anti-Israel activists (even if they object the policies of the Israeli government), men do not. This violence is directly aimed towards Zionists – those supporting the idea that Jews have right to political independence in the land of Israel which basically means all Israelis and almost all Jews. I have no sympathy for him and the violence-laden words he uses against Jews and Israelis (Zionists as he calls them). I think he is irresponsible. But he should get his job back

    Like

  2. Bharath Vallabha Avatar
    Bharath Vallabha

    My intuition is the same in both cases: the professor should be disciplined in some manner, but not “de-hired”; and if the professor, even after being disciplined in this instance, continues the same behavior, then firing is legitimate.
    Professor F’s anger is justifiable. But if she expresses that anger in a hateful way, what is the difference between her and a non-academic? What is the point of being a great researcher and a wonderful teacher if, when engaging with the horrors of daily life, Professor F expresses her anger and frustration just like any one else, when all the nuance of her reflection is set aside in order to vent in a blunt way?
    Surely academic freedom is not given to academics from on high. It is a privilege accorded by the general public out of a sense of being inspired by the values of the academic life; a way for the public to say they trust the academics to help non-academics learn how to meet the atrocities of life in a noble way. If Professor F wants to tweet just like any one else, then it is hypocritical for her to use academic freedom as a shield. For academic freedom is meant precisely so that academics can learn to act more nobley than others, and then help pass on that skill to the public.

    Like

  3. Darius Jedburgh Avatar
    Darius Jedburgh

    I agree that the comparison is very wrong, but for the opposite reason. I see no ground for supposing that Salaita was using the expression ‘Zionists’ to refer to anyone other than Zionists. I believe he is aware that there are non-Zionist Jews and non-Jewish Zionists. The many Jewish students, faculty and staff at UIUC who have issued a statement in support of Salaita seem to agree. I disagree with Salaita’s characterisation of Zionists as such, but that’s not the point. To say he took himself to be criticising Jews and Israelis as such is just slander.
    On the other hand, if Salaita had been holding up a would-be killer of Jews as a hero and boosting a ‘Society for Cutting Up Jews’ on Twitter there would have been a case for regarding him as engaging in hate speech and inciting violence. (‘Jews’ and not ‘Zionists’ would be the clear analogue of ‘Men’ in ‘Professor F”s construal of SCUM as an acronym — a construal apparently not intended by Solanas. Although boosting a ‘Society for Cutting Up Zionists’ would obviously also be very bad.) Prof Chopra’s comparison of Salaita with ‘Professor F’ is therefore also slanderous.

    Like

  4. jkl Avatar
    jkl

    I am puzzled by your account of the legitimacy of academic freedom. You reify the general public, and have it bestow academic freedom unto professors. The history of academic freedom is complex. Part of the story has a thread that can be traced back to 19th Century Germany. Professors were to be protected from being fired for their choice of research topics. They were not to lose their jobs for what they research. Clearly, this rationale provides no grounds for protecting Salaita in this case. His tweets, which many find offensive, are not research. Part of the problem is that in America “academic freedom” is interpreted in a such a way that it is thought to protect any sort of faculty behaviour, whether it is related to their teaching and research, or not.

    Like

  5. Bharath Vallabha Avatar
    Bharath Vallabha

    Jkl, I agree with what you say. I don’t think Salaita can be defended on the grounds of academic freedom. My point was that there is and should be academic freedom; academics have this privilege in order to be certain kinds of exemplars in society. But this is not to defend anything an academic does, especially if what an academic does is detrimental to why academic freedom exists. The reason to discipline Salaita can come from within academia itself: when an academic acts in a way which seems no different than anyone in a mob, then they make it hard for academia to fulfill its role in helping society.
    The fact that Salaita was fired (or de-hired) and how it was done is wrong. But even if none of that had happened, somebody within academia should have stepped up and tried to hold Salaita accountable for the tweets. Would that have happened? Probably not. I think that suggests it is not just power-hungry business interests trying to take away the academics’ privilages, but that academics themselves are partly giving them away by not holding each other accountable.
    Btw, this is not suggest that Salaita is somehow lacking in character. He might in general have great character and some of the tweets might have been written impulsively when he was in a pained state. Still, that is no defense of the tweets themselves.

    Like

  6. bzfgt Avatar
    bzfgt

    What is the point of the analogy? That the woman who supports Valerie Solanas would obviously not be terminated? It seems like too close a parallel (with provisions for Darius Jedburgh’s points) to be enlightening, and if anything the SCUM-supporting academic’s posts are much more objectionable than Salaita’s (again, for reasons elucidated by Jedburgh), so I honestly have no idea what the point of the post is or what conclusions we’re supposed to draw from it.

    Like

  7. Meir Alon Avatar
    Meir Alon

    I’m really sorry but you got this a little off.
    You write that “The many Jewish students, faculty and staff at UIUC who have issued a statement in support of Salaita” show that many Jews are not Zionist.
    This is totally wrong. I would support Salaita as well, but I believe that Jews deserve their political independence. And I can assure you that many of these Jewish students, faculty and staff would agree with me as well.
    You continue: “To say he took himself to be criticising Jews and Israelis as such is just slander.”
    Once again, I’m sorry but you are simply not familiar with the facts. Many of those who don’t believe in the legitimacy of the state of Israel (like Iran for example and Salaita) refer to Israelis as Zionists to reflect the fact that they don’t recognize Israel as a nation state. Hence: Jews that lives in Palestine are Zionists.
    You say: “I believe he is aware that there are non-Zionist Jews and non-Jewish Zionists” The vast majority of Jews in this country believe that Jews have a right for political independence. There is no doubt about it. Many (including myself) are very critical of Israel and think Palestinians should also have their political independence. But that doesn’t mean they do not affirm Jews’ right for political independence and hence Zionist.

    Like

Leave a comment