Angry about Katherine Franke's "retirement"? Good, you should be. But if people are serious about stopping something like this from happening again, they need to get serious about the cause. Because the precedent was set loooong ago.
A big-ish 🧵
In fact, all of the tools now being used against pro-Palestine faculty (the DEI apparatus, Title VI complaints, collegiality discourse) were developed years ago to quash speech opposed by the left. And I have receipts to prove it.
Here's your imperial boomerang, folks. 2/
This prof worries about DEI being weaponized as a tool of repression. Buddy, that die was cast years ago. In fact, I'd wager that the use of DEI as a weapon is *less* effective now than it was five years ago. It's just that the target has (partially) changed. 3/
It's suddenly grown very fashionable on the left to criticize DEI. Those folks should spare a thought for all the center and rightwing profs who came before them and paid for it with their careers. Like Nathaniel Hiers, who lost his job at UNT for this: 4/ reason.com/volokh/2022/03…
Or Matthew Garrett, a tenured history prof at Bakersfield College. In April 2023, he was fired for criticizing DEI initiatives, which apparently is not allowed. Thankfully, he sued and forced Bakersfield into a costly settlement. 5/ edsource.org/2024/professor…
Or Stuart Reges. In 2022, he criticized Indigenous land acknowledgements as empty posturing. In retaliation, his university encouraged students to file complaints against him, accused him or harassment, and launched a year-long investigation. He sued... 6/ kentreporter.com/news/uw-profes…
...and lost in federal court. But that's only b/c the court applied the incorrect and highly alarming legal standard. Reges has appealed with supportive briefs from virtually every civil liberties and academic freedom group in the Rolodex. /7 thefire.org/cases/reges-v-…
(With one rather notable exception.) /8
Lesson #1: The "weaponization" of DEI happened long ago and has claimed many, many professors long before it came for Katherine Franke. So it would be a huge mistake for academics today to diagnose the problem as "DEI" + "Anti-Zionist Activism" as opposed to DEI tout court. /9
Another claim I've seen floating around is that Zionist groups have somehow hacked the DoE and Title VI complaint process to accuse activists of antisemitism. Again, this is misleading. 10/
Yes, it's true that Zionist groups are abusing the Title VI process, something I have argued repeatedly and at great length. 11/ pen.org/for-federal-ce…
But a huge part of the reason why they're able to do so is b/c of a change introduced a decade ago by Obama to combat sex-based discrimination and harassment under Title IX. That change, which was ported over to Title VI as well, made it much easier to prove a CRA violation. /12
I've run through this history before so I won't replicate it here. But it's worth saying explicitly that what made Columbia so vulnerable to pressure by Zionist orgs is a policy choice made by Obama, dropped by Trump in 2017, and restored by Biden. /13
Depressed? Take heart! Biden's Title IX policy has been struck down as a 1A violation by courts across the country. As of last week it is effectively dead and I fully expect Trump will finish the job. Shame it took 4+ years of red state litigation. /14 insidehighered.com/news/governmen…
Lesson #2: Yes, Zionist orgs are going to use Title VI to eviscerate pro-Palestine activism. But they didn't create this weapon. They didn't hone it to fine edge. That work was already done for them elsewhere, and so the work of neutralizing that weapon begins elsewhere too. 15/
Pissed at me yet? Too bad, because there's one lesson left. One of the chief complaints used against Franke and many other activists is "lack of collegiality," especially in their service work. It's a massive academic freedom "loophole" used to silence angry profs. 16/
Again, this weapon has been used against profs for years. Profs like Ohio Northern University law school's Scott Gerber, who in 2023 got the whole Katherine Franke treatment: escorted out of class by armed security, marched to the dean, and ordered to resign or be fired. 17/
Why? No one really knew, at least at first. Just that he had violated the university's policy "governing collegiality." AFAIK we still don't have a clear answer, but it has something to do with (you guessed it) criticism of ONU's DEI initiatives. 18/
At its essence, Gerber's case, like Franke's, is about the right of faculty to forcefully criticize their own university's internal policies. It's a dimension of their service, and for that reason should be protected under the 1A and the principles of academic freedom. 19/
But *again*, that right has been under threat for years now. And *again*, the ones who were targeted were not pro-Palestine activists. In fact, the crucial court case happened two years ago and involved a prof who criticized -- once again -- DEI. 20/ carolinajournal.com/federal-appeal…
When his dean removed him from the PhD program, he sued on 1A grounds. But the 4th CA, in a 2-1 ruling, decided that the 1A only protects a public uni prof's teaching and scholarship, NOT anything they say or do in the course of university service. 21/
Lesson #3: For pro-Palestine profs intent on making themselves a righteous nuisance to their colleagues and department heads (and they should!), be careful. You may very well be utterly unprotected by the 1A. You can thank NCSU’s Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. 22/
Three hard lessons. One hard truth: The "Palestine Exception," if there is one, is much less exceptional than some would like to believe. Don't let that fact anger you so much that you reject it. It's a *good* thing. This is how you diagnose the problem. It's also how you... 23/
...build an alliance to solve it. Yes, pro-Israel orgs intent on destroying academic freedom must be confronted head on, but understand that they are only guilty of taking advantage of tools other people had already built. Eliminate the tools and you eliminate the threat. 24/
Meanwhile, to those right-wingers now crowing over just desserts and whatnot, you need to also understand that it was conservatives who dealt the most grievous blow to academic freedom way back in 2006 (the Garcetti decision)... 25/
Again, pro-Palestine activists should welcome these facts. Yes, it probably means eating some crow, owning the hypocrisy, and even (heaven forfend) apologizing to some colleagues. Nevertheless, it offers us all a roadmap toward getting back what we've lost.
That's it. 27/27
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s gotta be said: much of the Jewish response to the Bibas family is flat-out insane. Genocidal, psychopathic, murderous, cruel, and out-of-control. And not just from the usual precincts of Jtwitter, either. It’s everywhere.
Stop. Step back from the Kahanism.
I logged on after Shabbat and found nothing but bloodlust. Dressed in a rueful “they forced us into this” fatalism, of course, but you could sense the eagerness. It’s understandable but still inhuman.
Obviously plenty of pro-Palestinian accounts are vomiting up their own brand of bile. Psychopaths like Saeed, Kiswani, El-Kurd. But I expect that sort of shit from them. They have precisely one rhetorical speed and we can all see how successful THAT’S proven to be.
🚨The IHRA definition of antisemitism, if adopted and enforced by public universities, is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. So says a federal judge in Texas. A terrific (if, for reasons I'll explain in a second, somewhat inconclusive) decision. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Here's the gist. Last March after a series of protests by SJP and related groups on college campuses, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed GA-44, an executive order requiring public colleges and universities to prohibit and punish antisemitic speech. gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/…
To define antisemitic speech, TX higher ed was told to use the IHRA definition and its attendant examples, which the legislature adopted in 2016. At the time, it was framed as simply a diagnostic tool for spotting antisemitic speech in the state. statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/GV/htm/GV…
This is actually part of a much larger and quite significant story. The entire “anti-woke” strategy in Florida is in full retreat. @PENamerica noticed it fairly early on and put together a good piece on it.
There is no person on earth with a stronger claim to my house than me because when I am in it, I remember that it is where my daughter took her first steps. No theory of Indigeneity or ethno-religious descent is more powerful than that.
IOW, what matters is community.
A rant:
It's important to keep in mind what the real crime of settler colonialism is. Not "theft" per se. No single ethnic group or cultural lineage can own the land, and if your political theory claims otherwise, it is evil and I want nothing to do with it.
The real crime of settler colonialism is the destruction of communities, the loss of one's home, the denial of self-determination. After all, that's what really matters to you, right? The freedom to move through the world how you like and in the company of those you love.
Another lawsuit has been filed against an anti-CRT bill. This time it's in Tennessee. @ThePlumLineGS has the details, which are pretty crazy. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
@ThePlumLineGS The 2021 law at issue is what @PENamerica calls an "Inclusion" ban. That means it forbids K-12 teachers from including certain ideas in classroom instruction. The other types of bans, Compulsion and Promotion, are also bad, but less so.
@ThePlumLineGS @PENamerica In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague. It permits discussion of "controversial issues", but only if they're "impartial". What do "controversial" and "impartial" mean? I have no idea, nor (I suspect) does the state. tnea.org/_data/media/82…
This incredible admission comes after plaintiffs pointed out (and a lower court agreed) that the law's ban on saying that "[a] person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against...to achieve DEI" would bar support for AA.
Is affirmative action good or bad? Does it achieve its stated goals or not? Should we keep it, change it, or get rid of it all together?
What plaintiffs were trying to do was make a reductio: Florida's argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would ban faculty -- and even...