Skip to main content

The Illinois Incivility tales: When you go back on the contract or pretend it does not exist.

On August 6, 2015, almost exactly a year after the academic Steven Salaita had been informed that his services at the University of Illinois were no longer needed, a federal court rejected the University's argument that it did not enter into a binding contract with Professor Salaita because the offer to employ him was subject to approval by the Illinois Board of Trustees.

The court's rejection reiterates the premise under which academic hires are made across campuses in the US, with the signature by the Board of Trustees being just a rubber-stamp, an ornamental step in the hiring process.

Presiding on the case, Judge Leineneweber noted, "If the court accepted the University's agreement, the entire American academic hiring process as it now operates would cease to exist, because no professor would resign a tenure position, move states, and start teaching at a new college based on an 'offer' that was absolutely meaningless until after the semester already started."

The judgment points to a fundamental dishonesty in the line taken by the University, which I will argue is a form of incivility, a "rude or impolite attitude or behavior." This argument builds on earlier blog posts in which I have put forth the claim that the University, its trustees, and Chancellor acted in uncivil ways that sought to silence diversity.

As a form of communicative inversion, a reversal of communication from its material basis [the contract], the University's strategy of pretending that there was not really an agreement with Professor Salaita fundamentally disrupts the normative expectations of the academic hiring process. 

As suggested by the Judge's ruling, the Illinois administration walked out of a contract it had entered into by simply stating that it did not exist. In arguing that there was not really a contract, the University demonstrated that as an organization it can't be trusted. In the future, academics entering into a contract with Illinois would not trust the contract, knowing that Illinois could simply go back on its words and play a game of inversions. Communicative inversions in this sense are not only rude and impolite, but are fundamentally threatening to the trust that is essential to the hiring process.

The University administration knew very well this academic norm of hiring and contract offers that is widely held across University campuses, and yet, went on to unhire Professor Salaita on the basis of the technicality that the approval of the Board of Trustees was scheduled to be secured in the Fall after Professor Salaita would have already started teaching at the University. In paying for Professor Salaita's moving expenses, setting up the classes he would teach etc., the University followed the norms that are attached to a contract. Yet, later when it worked to its convenience, the University started pretending that there was not really a contract.

By not respecting its contract with Professor Salaita and moreover by using a technicality (the signature by the Board of Trustees) to argue that there was no contract with Professor Salaita, the Illinois administration demonstrated the incivility that is embedded in its communicative practices. Pretending that there was no contract depicts the face of a University that strategically deploys communicative inversions without the commitment to follow through to a promise made.

The Illinois incivility will stay as the face of the University for many years to come. Hopefully however, the ruling in the current case will stand in as a reminder to Universities about the costs of such incivility.

As an exemplar of the violation of the implicit commitment to respecting a contract made to a new faculty appointment, the University's incivility fundamentally threatens the integrity of the academic hiring process. The ruling pointed clearly to this lack of integrity in the Illinois hiring process.


Popular posts from this blog

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit

Tova O’Brien and pedagogy of whiteness

So Tova O’Brien was looking for a click-bait opportunity to draw in listeners to her podcast and she found the migrant activist and Green Party politician Dr. Sapna Samant to pick on. In a gotcha moment, Tova shared with the Green Party co-leader James Shaw a series of posts made by Dr. Samant on whiteness, Hindutva, and multiculturalism, asking him if the tweets were OK. We don’t understand from listening to O’Brien’s podcast if her research team actively researched Dr. Sapna Samant’s social media posts, or whether these selective screen captures of Dr. Samant’s tweets were sent to her by someone wanting to target Samant. The thoroughly unresearched piece is poor journalism, reflective of the mediocrity that is perpetuated by whiteness , the hegemonic values of the dominant white culture in settler colonies. If indeed her research team had discovered the tweets, it’s worth interrogating why the social media posts of a migrant woman activist on whiteness are of interest to O’Brien’s po