The Faculty Lounge

More on Hypocrisy and Israel Boycotts

Originally posted on Social Science Space 12/08/2021  by Steven Lubet

In an essay last month on Social Science Space, I pointed out the hypocrisy of activists who demand maximum academic freedom for themselves while at the same time promoting a boycott of Israeli institutions (BDS) that would limit the academic freedom of many others. The example I offered was Prof. Dan Segal of Pitzer College, who wrote a post on the AAUP’s Academe Blog bemoaning his investigation by the college for “harassment on the grounds of sex/gender [and] ancestry,” in which he was ultimately cleared. Segal persuasively argued that lengthy investigations into meritless claims can erode academic freedom by discouraging candid discussions in the classroom. My essay agreed with Segal’s view that “academic freedom protections shield all conduct and speech made in the delivery of legitimate course content” (italics Segal’s).

The hypocrisy, however, was evident in a post on Segal’s personal blog, where he objected to a course offering at Canada’s McMaster University – “The Beginning of Science: Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian Conception of Space and Time” – because it was co-taught by an Israeli professor in conjunction with Tel Aviv University. “Virtual or online educational partnerships,” he said, “deserve our boycott as much as those that happen in person.”

Segal has now posted on open letter, also on Social Science Space, complaining falsely that I misrepresented his views. I have therefore copied Segal’s key paragraphs below, with my own responses in italics.

A Response to ‘When Academic Freedom Proves a One-Way Street’

Published on 11/23/2021 By Dan A. Segal

I appreciate being read, but do not appreciate being misread.

I do not hold, and actively oppose, many of the views you, Professor Lubet, have projected on to me in “When Academic Freedom Proves a One-Way Street.” The positions I articulated in the blog entry you discuss involve no objections to Pitzer or McMaster hiring Professor Eshbal Raston for a position for which she is fully qualified and the best available candidate. Full stop. Contrary to what you have claimed about my views, I do not support barriers to hiring an individual on the basis of their “nationality” or any other factor unrelated to their being qualified for a given position.

Segal magnanimously allows that Prof. Ratson should be eligible for a faculty appointment in Canada if she is willing to quit her current position and leave her home. As long as she remains affiliated with Tel Aviv University, however, he insists that she should not be permitted to co-offer a class with a colleague at McMaster. This alone is a restraint on the academic freedom of both Prof. Ratson and Prof. Symons, the faculty member at McMaster, because it prevents them from fully cooperating – in Segal’s own words, on “the delivery of legitimate course content” – for the benefit of students at both universities.

Segal’s claim that Ratson could still figure out some way to teach at McMaster is the equivalent of the Red State legislators who defend the hours-long lines at the polls in Democratic districts. People can still vote if they try hard enough; they just have to endure onerous conditions and overcome obstacles if they hope to do it.

The Palestinian BDS campaign—which I proudly support—is clear that it embraces academic freedom and rejects boycotting individual scholars. It calls instead for opposing institutional relationships with Israeli universities (italics Segal’s).

That is indeed what the BDS movement claims. Even if true – and there are numerous cases where boycotters have gone much further, including the rejection of journal submissions by Israeli authors – it is still a restraint on academic freedom. As I clearly recognized in my essay, “Segal does not advocate totally obliterating the academic freedom of the two professors.” A significant constraint on academic freedom is still objectionable, however, even if it leaves open a hypothetical possibility that the boycotted academics can find a viable work-around. In the world of free speech scholarship, we call that a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right, and we do not like it.

I ask that you reread—slowly, carefully, and closely—my blog post on the McMaster case. And I hope that when you do, you will recognize an ethical obligation to correct, publicly, your mistaken claims about my views.

Segal’s condescension aside, I read his blog post thoroughly and summarized it accurately, with appropriate quotations. As I explained in detail above, it is quite apparent that he does not believe in full academic freedom for Israeli scholars, or for North American academics who want to work with them. He is disingenuously unwilling to come out and say it.

The hypocrisy of Segal’s position is that he simultaneously demands the broadest version of academic freedom for himself, claiming that enduring even the slightest hesitation is a violation of his rights. “I know that this experience [the investigation, in which he was completely exonerated] has impacted my teaching,” Segal explained in his Academe Blog post. In some class sessions, he continued, “it has led me to ‘not go there,’ that is, to not explore certain examples or lines of thought that I otherwise would—and should—have pursued.” Thus, academic freedom must be as expansive as possible for the right people (Segal) and sharply curtailed for the wrong people (Israelis).

It is a considerable difference between us that I was raised to think that if one writes a criticism of someone else, one should share that criticism with the person one is criticizing—as a matter of both respectful candor and a commitment to robust dialogue and debate (the very goals of academic freedom and speech rights!). 

I do not doubt that Segal had quite an excellent childhood, but it evidently did not include instruction in journalism’s ethics. If I had reported a negative fact about Segal, I certainly would have contacted him for a response. There is no similar convention for opinion pieces, either before or after publication. In just this year, I have written critically about the president of the University of Florida, a Texas congressman and a Missouri senator, a Canadian psychiatrist, a dean at the Yale Law School, and several SCOTUS justices, among others. I did not send my essays to any of them (or to the many people whom I praised), and nobody but Segal has ever complained about it.

Segal’s declared “commitment to robust dialogue and debate” is as insubstantial as his faux respect for academic freedom. In fact, Segal boasts in his bio that he is “proud to serve” in the organizing collective for the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), an organization that specifically opposes all participation in academic activities such as “events, projects, or publications that are designed explicitly to bring together Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis so they can present their respective narratives or perspectives, or to work toward reconciliation.” Not much dialogue; plenty of hypocrisy.

CFP: Jaharis Health Law Symposium

The DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute, and Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology (CIPLIT®) are excited to announce a Call for Papers in connection with the 2022 Jaharis Health Law Symposium.

This year’s topic, “Antitrust and Access to Care: Lessons from Market Consolidation and a Public Health Crisis,” will explore how consolidation across health care markets has impacted access to care. Prominent legal scholars, antitrust enforcers and expert practitioners will address a range of questions through four separate panels focusing on health insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital and digital health markets.

Three papers will be selected from the submissions. Each selected author will receive a $500 honorarium and their article (of approximately 10,000 words) will be published in the Symposium issue of the DePaul Journal of Health Care Law. Full article drafts will be due by June 1, 2022.

We are open to a wide range of topics consistent with the Symposium theme but are particularly interested in papers from scholars with diverse experiences and backgrounds researching health insurance or pharmaceutical markets, as well as papers from junior scholars.

The Symposium will be held both in-person and remotely at DePaul College of Law in Chicago on March 10, 2022. Presenters able to appear in person will receive reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses.

Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to asetrini@depaul.edu by January 15, 2022, with the subject line “Jaharis Symposium: Call for Papers.” You also may submit an optional statement of no more than 500 words describing how your selection would enhance the diversity of the Symposium.

Judith Welch Wegner (1950-2021)

Judith Welch Wegner died on December 3, 2021 after a short illness.  She is survived by Warren, her husband of nearly 50 years; a brother, a sister, sister-in-law, two nieces, three nephews and numerous friends.  She was 71 and she and her husband had moved to Nantucket, Massachusetts following her 2016 retirement as a faculty member at UNC School of Law.

Wegner joined the law school faculty in 1981.  She served as dean from 1989-99, contributing in numerous ways to the welfare of the law school, including hiring diverse faculty and staff, implementing an externship program, reforming the curriculum, securing funds for and constructing a major law school building addition, and strengthening ties with alumni and the campus at large.  She supported the development of the UNC Festival of Legal Learning (a major continuing education program) and served as director of the program for many years until her retirement.

In addition, Wegner served as president of the Association of American Law Schools (1995) and as a senior scholar with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (where she was co-author of Educating Lawyers, published in 2007).  She also served the campus and UNC System, first as elected chair of the UNC Chapel Hill faculty (2003-2006) and later as chair of the Faculty Assembly representing all UNC system campuses (2008-2010).

In addition to focusing on innovative legal education, Wegner’s scholarship centered on state and local government law (State and Local Government in a Federal System, in numerous editions).  She was the recipient of the Ernest Ball award for excellence in municipal law from the North Carolina municipal lawyers. Wegner also served on numerous local elected and appointed committees and state legislative committees including the Carrboro Town Council, Orange County Planning Board, and General Statutes Commission. She took special pride in mentoring students and colleagues involved in the field of municipal law.

Wegner was born in Windsor, CT in 1950, and attended public schools there. She received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) in 1972 (phi beta kappa), and her law degree from UCLA in 1996 (order of the coif).  Prior to joining the UNC Law faculty, she worked in Washington, D.C. as an attorney in the Department of Justice and as a Special Assistant to the United States Secretary of Education.  She asks that contributions in her honor be made to the UNC School of Government Foundation.

SMU Dean Jennifer Collins Named President of Rhodes College

Rhodes College has announced that its new president will be Jennifer M. Collins.  Collins has been the dean of SMU Law since 2014.  She will make the move to Tennessee on July 1, 2022.

Barry University School of Law Seeks: Tenure-Track Faculty to Teach Legal Research & Writing (LRW)

Barry Law is seeking to fill one or more full-time, tenure-track faculty positions beginning in the Fall 2022 semester and is particularly interested in receiving applications from candidates who teach primarily in Legal Research & Writing (LRW).

 

The School of Law endeavors to offer a quality legal education in a caring environment with a religious dimension so that study and reflection lead to informed action and a commitment to social justice leads to collaborative service. The School of Law seeks to challenge students to embrace intellectual, personal, ethical, spiritual, ecological, and social responsibilities in an atmosphere of

academic freedom. The program strives to equip its graduates to apply the knowledge, values, and skills they acquire to enhance personal growth, the legal profession, the judicial system, society, and the Earth community.

 

Qualifications/Requirements:

Juris Doctorate.

A record of high academic achievement.

Demonstrated potential for superior and productive scholarship.

Experience in and demonstrated success and excellence in law school teaching.

Commitment to the mission of the School of Law and its curricular and instructional methods and goals.

 

Candidates must submit the following:

Resume or curriculum vitae.

Cover letter.

Contact information for three professional references.

Please note: additional documentation may be requested at any time.

 

Benefits: Barry University offers a comprehensive benefits package to full-time employees that includes health, dental, vision, life insurance, retirement, tuition assistance, paid time off and work/life balance initiatives such as wellness programs, spirituality in the workplace, and training and development.

 

Barry University is an Equal Opportunity Employer, committed to a diverse and inclusive work environment.

 

Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. Please submit application materials through the link below or via email to the Chair of the Faculty Appointments Committee, Professor Stephen Leacock, at sleacock@barry.edu. Further information on the openings may be found at: https://barryu.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/BarryU/job/Orlando--Law-Campus/Assistant-Associate-Professor-of-Law_R0004725.

Former Law School Faculty Member Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame as a Player [UPDATED]

I am pleased to report that Minnie Minoso has finally been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, making him the only former member of a law school faculty in Cooperstown (and making Northwestern the only law school faculty represented by a player in the Hall). Minnie was represented by Dennis Ferrazzano, who was the William H. Trumbull lecturer and adjunct professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law from 1979 to 1999 (and was awarded the Robert Childres Memorial Teaching Award in 1985).  Dennie brought Minnie to several of the student-faculty softball games in the 1980s, and we voted him an honorary member of the faculty instanter. As it was with the White Sox and other MLB teams, his performance was legendary. The adjoining photo is from 1987.

Orestes “Minnie” Minoso (1925-2015) was one of the great players in major league baseball. He was the first Black player on the White Sox in 1951 (two years before Ernie Banks broke the color line on the Cubs) and the first Black Latino player in the major leagues in 1949. You can read more about him here, here, and here. He had a lifetime batting average of .299 and played in nine All-Star Games (in seven seasons). He had over 2000 hits and over 1000 RBI. He was hit by pitches 16 times in his first season (a shameful statistic that shows what he had to endure, in addition to name calling by opposing players). 

Minoso began his professional career in Cuba, and then played for the New York Cubans in the Negro League for two years. He was signed by Cleveland in 1948, and played in MLB in five separate decades, mostly for the White Sox, making his last plate appearance with the White Sox in 1980 (before retiring and playing for the NULS Faculty All-Stars).

There may be HOF managers and executives who have taught law school classes, but I believe Minoso is the only player ever voted onto a law school faculty.

UPDATE: It turns out that Hank Greenberg was briefly appointed our honorary dean for the 1960 softball game -- recruited by then-3L Jerry Reinsdorf (not yet the owner of the Bulls and White Sox). So it turns out that we have two former faculty members in the Hall of Fame.

All My Loving

There were surprisingly few covers of this essential Beatles song. 

The Fragility of Academic Freedom

I have a new column up on the Hill, about increasing threats to academic freedom in the U.S. Here is the gist:

THE HILL

 The fragility of academic freedom

 BY STEVEN LUBET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/01/21

 “Educational gag orders” have become distressingly common across the country, as too many university administrations claim to support academic freedom while weakening it in practice.

At the University of Florida, three political science professors were recently denied permission to provide expert testimony in a lawsuit challenging the state’s restrictive voting law. In an initial ruling from university administrators, the faculty members were barred from testifying because a “conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create[s] a conflict for the University of Florida.” Under that diktat, the results of faculty research were effectively suppressed – by prohibition from presentation in a courtroom – because they are contrary to the current governor’s political views.

Florida is not the only state where academic freedom is on increasingly shaky ground. Administrators at the University of Texas have ordered researchers to suspend recruiting subjects for a study on the effectiveness of anti-racism training for white children. The project planned to involve up to 200 pairs of white-identified children – ages four or five, and not yet in kindergarten – along with their caregivers, who would watch professionally produced videos and follow discussion guides. It was approved by the university’s institutional review board and passed a peer review process for internal funding.

In other words, one over-hyped complaint, magnified on various websites, and the extraordinarily unlikely prospect of OCR intervention, were sufficient to disrupt previously approved faculty research that the administration should always have defended.

You can read the entire column here (not paywalled).

Idaho Law Seeks Clinical Professor

This just in:

The University of Idaho College of Law seeks a clinical professor to teach the College’s legal writing & analysis (LWA) course on a full-time basis at its Boise, Idaho location. The position is an academic-year appointment with faculty voting rights and associated faculty governance responsibilities. The successful candidate may be hired at the assistant, associate, or full professor level, depending on experience.

The LWA course is a two semester, five credit, required first year course. The successful candidate will be an integral part of the legal writing faculty team, responsible for teaching up to two sections of LWA and working collaboratively with the other LWA faculty members to develop the course curriculum and major writing assignments. The successful candidate may also (1) teach an additional course depending on areas of interest and the College’s curricular needs, or (2) help coordinate the College’s upper-level Advanced Advocacy course.

As a land grant law school, the College is committed to public service and to providing an accessible, high-quality education in an inclusive environment. The College offers outstanding law programs in two locations:  one in Moscow, on the University of Idaho’s main campus, and one in Boise, which is Idaho’s capital and its hub of economic and government activity. The law school’s new Boise campus at 501 W. Front Street is situated near the Idaho State Capitol, Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho State Bar. The College’s Boise location also houses the Idaho State Law Library, which provides attorneys, judges, students and the public access to a vast array of legal research tools.

Boise, Idaho is one of the fastest-growing and most livable cities in the country. Nestled in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Boise has numerous options for outdoor recreation. The city also has a rich and dynamic downtown area with first-rate shopping, dining, and entertainment.

The University of Idaho is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer committed to assembling a diverse, broadly trained faculty and staff. Women, minorities, people with disabilities, and veterans are strongly encouraged to apply.

Applicants must provide a letter of qualification, resume or CV, inclusion statement, three references, and an 8–12 page writing sample demonstrating legal analysis. Interested candidates should apply online at https://uidaho.peopleadmin.com/postings/33842. Please direct questions regarding this opportunity to Professor Rachelle West, LWA Hiring Committee Chair, at rketchum@uidaho.edu.

The Trials of Rasmea Odeh -- Published Today

Today is the official publication of my new book, The Trials of Rasmea Odeh: How a Palestinian Guerrilla Gained and Lost U.S. Citizenship.

On February 21, 1969, a bomb exploded in the largest supermarket in Jerusalem. The blast killed two and injured many more, triggering an intense search for the terrorists behind the plot. Israeli security forces quickly apprehended, tortured, tried, and eventually convicted twenty-one-year-old Palestinian Rasmea Odeh for murder. Twenty-five years later, however, Odeh was not serving a life sentence in an Israeli prison but instead starting a new life in the United States, first in Detroit and later in Chicago, eventually becoming a naturalized citizen and working as a community organizer. Her arrest by U.S. federal authorities in 2013 on charges of unlawful procurement of citizenship and subsequent trial ignited defenders and detractors, even as the facts of the case, the previous conviction, and those of Odeh’s life were obscured or ignored.

Based on extensive research, The Trials of Rasmea Odeh separates fact from fiction as it follows the remarkable twists of this story, even―or especially―where those facts subvert one political narrative or another. The result is that rare book that is both an extraordinary achievement of scholarly research and a gripping, accessible, and engaging narrative, making it an invaluable resource for discussion of the issues of citizenship, statehood, and the limits of legality this story engages.

Here are some of the advance comments:

The Trials of Rasmea Odeh weaves together an intricate historical and legal account of Middle Eastern conflict and U.S. denaturalization. Rasmea Odeh's story, told with nuance and in crisp prose, grips the reader every bit as much as a fictional thriller would. A highly informative and fascinating book of great value to scholars and general readers alike. --Irina Manta, author of Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Professor Lubet takes no shortcuts with this book, unflinchingly examining the record of Odeh's life ... Professor Lubet is able to explain the underlying law and legal strategy in a way that is clear and comprehensible without losing any technical nuance. He brings the courtroom alive to the reader, showing how both political and legal strategies influenced how the case was litigated. [It] is beautifully written and will be of interest to a wide audience. --Cassandra Burke Robertson, John Deaver Drinko--Baker Hostetler Professor of Law and Director, Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

What an exemplary gem of scholarship. Combining thorough inquiry with critical empathy, Lubet has written a superb classic that young scholars whatever their field will benefit from reading. The Trials of Rasmea Odeh is truly one of the most impressive books I've ever read. --David J. Garrow, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama

 

Another Reason That Employees Need Unions

This is from Slate's workplace advice column:

Dear Direct Report,

My office announced it’s closing for the week between Christmas and New Year’s, since so many people take time off then anyway. Great! But then they announced that we’ll need to use our PTO for that week, even if we were otherwise planning to work. That makes no sense to me! If we were ready and willing to work, why should we lose vacation time just because the office decided to close? Our unused vacation time rolls over to the next year, so this means we’ll have a week less to use next year than we had counted on having. Is this even legal?

—Fuming

Dear Fuming,

It’s legal, but it’s a bad policy. Unfortunately, it’s not an uncommon policy; a lot of offices that close that week handle holiday closures the same way. But when you’re talking about a full week, that’s a significant bite out of most people’s vacation leave.

You and your co-workers can try pushing back! Point out that some employees have that vacation time allotted for other uses, and this will wreak havoc on anyone who needed that week for, say, their kid’s wedding or a long-planned family trip next year. Your employer may or may not budge, but the more of you who speak up, the better your chances of getting it reconsidered.

First, the appropriation of employees' vacation time may not be against the law, but it certainly might violate the terms of employment, especially if they are set out in an employee handbook. If so, employees would have a much stronger argument than merely speaking up or pointing out that the policy will "wreak havoc" with their plans. The employer obviously knows that already, however, and does not seem to care.

In a union setting, of course, there would be a contract that firmly spells out an employee's PTO, and it surely would not require the use of vacation days when the employer chooses to close the office. Most important, there would be a grievance procedure for raising such issues, and it would be far more effective and available than a few people "pushing back."