[Peace-discuss] L'ordre regne (as was said in Paris in '68) in Illinois

[Robert Naiman]

Is it wrong to think that historically one of the reasons that the
University invested in the American Indian Studies program was to counter
the perception of the U of I as an anti-Indian institution because of the
Chief mascot?

Could we agitate for something from the University in terms of Palestine
studies as part of a community compensation package? A professorship? An
annual conference? A scholarship? Conference travel money for graduate
students? An annual Millercommy Palestine studies lecture for the broad
public? All of the above?

How much do these things cost? What would be a round overall figure for
endowing such a collection of things?







Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:30 AM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
wrote:

> *University of Illinois settles Salaita suit; News-Gazette editorializes*
>
> The local daily is typically tendentious in its editorial comment on the
> matter - even managing to justify in passing Israel's 2014 assault on Gaza
> - but it arrives at an accurate conclusion, if perhaps not in the way it's
> meant:
>
> "The Salaita controversy was the result of a highly unusual set of
> circumstances not likely to be repeated.”
>
> The unusual set of circumstances was that the university hired a scholar
> who was willing to use his purported academic freedom to condemn official
> crimes. Most academics have learnt since Vietnam not to do that.
>
> The university in this settlement wants to makes sure that's not repeated.
> What new faculty hire (or old faculty, for that matter) at UIUC will now
> take the chance of condemning Israel/US war crimes? The lesson has
> been taught, however ineptly.
>
> ========================================================
> A comment from my lawyer brother, David McC. Estabrook, of Arlington VA:
>
> The most important finding in the case is that Defendants have attempted
> to destroy or hide communications that it was their obligation to
> preserve. The finding that Defendants destroyed and hid communications
> about how they intended to trash Salaita convicts Defendants on the civil
> rights conspiracy case. The emails predate the filing of both cases and
> demonstrate the conspiracy with acts in furtherance thereof: the old delete
> after sending trick, worthy of Maxwell Smart. The settlement does not
> address the issue of punitive damages, which are due under the
> circumstances of a civil rights conspiracy among the faculty of a state
> university receiving federal funds who conspired to ruin Salaita because of
> what he said in the exercise of free speech. The Court should have made the
> individual Defendants write essays about a citizen's obligation to the
> Court and the importance of free speech under the First Amendment in
> academia.
>
> If defense counsel had known their case and their client, their response
> in federal court would have been an apology, agreed reinstatement,
> compensatory damages and attorney's fees.  Look at Plaintiff's legal bill
> for handing the million dollar lawyers their ass! Early in the case the
> Plaintiff's attorney's fees would have been half what they were awarded.
> With a more candid and forthcoming legal strategy, the university would
> have redeemed itself and saved a million dollars. My guess is that Salaita
> could have built a premier department in his field for the university…
>
> ###
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20151113/d8de89f8/attachment.html>