Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jascik today reports a disturbing development in the Steven Salaita firing case at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Phyllis Wise, the university’s chancellor, was lobbied by 70 pro-Israel folks, including donors, who were upset by Salaita’s comments on twitter about Gaza. The school’s fundraisers were alarmed and sought a meeting with Wise.
The communications show that Wise was lobbied on the decision not only by pro-Israel students, parents and alumni, but also by the fund-raising arm of the university. The communications also show that the university system president was involved, and that the university was considering the legal ramifications of the case before the action to block the appointment.
Most of the emails have the names of the senders redacted and some are nearly identical, suggesting the use of talking points or shared drafts. Many of the letter writers identify themselves as Jewish and/or sympathetic to Israel, as students, parents or alumni, and as people who say that the tone of Salaita’s comments (especially on Twitter) makes them believe he would be hostile to them and to their views.
“If I happen to register for Mr. Salaita’s course, how could I respectfully engage in conversation and learn material?” asked one email. Another said: “As a Jew, I do not feel comfortable knowing that the University of Illinois allows and supports this sort of behavior. I am currently an incoming senior, and while this is not the first time I have felt anti-Semitism at the University of Illinois, this is by far the most extreme and hurtful case.”
Seventy people wrote to Wise to urge her to block Salaita’s appointment (it is possible that some of the email messages are duplicates from the same person — the redactions make it impossible to tell). Only one person — an alumnus — wrote to urge Wise not to block the appointment. Of Salaita, this alumnus wrote: “He offers what may be an inconvenient and unpopular viewpoint to many; however as a teacher, I have come to fully believe that is what makes for the richest of educational experiences.”…
By the way, there is simply no evidence that Salaita, who was hired to teach American Indian studies, is anti-Semitic. He doesn’t like Israel, he’s very clear about that. But he didn’t say a word against Jews.
Here’s the fundraising stuff. This was obviously not a routine matter. All the development people jumped in:
While many of the emails are fairly similar, some stand out. For instance, there is an email from Travis Smith, senior director of development for the University of Illinois Foundation, to Wise, with copies to Molly Tracy, who is in charge of fund-raising for engineering programs, and Dan C. Peterson, vice chancellor for institutional advancement. The email forwards a letter complaining about the Salaita hire. The email from Smith says: “Dan, Molly, and I have just discussed this and believe you need to [redacted].” (The blacked out portion suggests a phrase is missing, not just a word or two.)
Later emails show Wise and her development team trying to set up a time to discuss the matter, although there is no indication of what was decided.
At least one email the chancellor received was from someone who identified himself as a major donor who said that he would stop giving if Salaita were hired. “Having been a multiple 6 figure donor to Illinois over the years I know our support is ending as we vehemently disagree with the approach this individual espouses. This is doubly unfortunate for the school as we have been blessed in our careers and have accumulated quite a balance sheet over my 35 year career,” the email says.
These emails are indicative of a crisis. Does anyone doubt that concerns about donors played a role in Chancellor Wise’s decision to cashier Salaita, nine months after he was offered and accepted a job at the school? This seems to me another demonstration that we cannot come to terms with the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel till we deal with the role of Zionist funding in our political and public life. This is the factional problem identified by Madison in the Federalist Papers; there is no national interest here. And we are going to be able to have that discussion now, because it is increasingly a generational rather than a religious issue. It’s about older Jews steeped in Zionist ideology. Young Jews are ever more distant from Zionism.
Thanks to Alex Kane.
This story unites everything about the awfulness of the Israel propagandists, whose children are apparently such delicate flowers that they can’t study American Indian history with a man who once tweeted derogatory things about a war criminal, and the fate that awaits us all in an economy and society beholden to the wealthy, where their whims and their checkbooks determine what we’re allowed to think and say in public.
“This seems to me another demonstration that we cannot come to terms with the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel till we deal with the role of Zionist funding in our political and public life. This is the factional problem identified by Madison in the Federalist Papers; there is no national interest here.”
It is. Wise and her minions certainly appear bankrupt in the things that matter the most.
Phil
Great job on the new website. Looks terrific.
That depends if you consider “Zionist” to be a derogatory term for “Jew” or not. Certainly among Soviets and anti-colonial movement it is used that way. Trying to distinguish between Zionist and Jew the way he was using it rather difficult. Quite a few of his comments like the jokes about sexual inadequacy wouldn’t make sense if you substituted say “Labor party voters” but would work fine if you substituted “gooks” or “niggers”.
Trying to pretend that a non-Jewish anti-Israeli activists can make common anti-Semetic comments and have them pass unnoticed because he uses the word “zionist” in place of Jew is nonsense. If I were to say something like “the Alabama underclass are shiftless and lazy. They need to stop eating fried chicken and get a job with health insurance,” the use of “shiftless and lazy” and “fried chicken” makes it pretty clear who I mean.
There is nothing in Zionism, that implies sexual inadequacy but there is plenty in anti-Semtisim thad does. The BDS movement is going to have to stay way clear of anti-Semtitic themes or get accused of racism. The same way the tea partier get accused of Islamophobia when they talk about Sharia law.
A good analogy here is Chris Rock’s well known “black people vs. niggaz”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4
Obama made reference to this routine during his 2008 primary. Hillary could not have done so. When references to it were made by white people Chris Rock thought they were racist. There are just different lines of what is or is not acceptable in group vs. out of group.
____
1) You are going to have to prove it is a generational issue. And that’s going to be impossible until younger Jews are in charge of Jewish organizations in a generation or so.
2) Even if it were a generation issue, so what? Everyone who works for a major university has to put up with nonsense from the sports teams because they attract so much donor interest. Most universities have to put up with spending too much on landscaping and architecture because that’s a donor interest. Jews in the 1950s and earlier were certainly hurt and arguably may still be hurt by the whole “alumni family” weighing on admissions. Certainly professors who are able to bring in donors get advancement and privileges that professors who don’t bring in donor money don’t get. Donors have interests. You write the check you get to call the shots. You vote with your dollars.
What’s to discuss? That Jewish people donate to universities and don’t want to see universities become a hotbed of anti-Jewish incitement? No one disagrees with that. The evidence is too clear.
E-mails! I knew it. You might as well hire a skywriter.
Gosh, and there I was, thinking all kinds of deep thoughts about “civility”. Will I have to listen to the same people who were concerned about Salaita’s “civility” saying that a University should, of course, in a democracy, be run by its big donors? I bet I will.