It applies to liberals too!

It applies to liberals too!

It would seem the capacity to confuse freedom of speech with the utterly unrealistic expectation of freedom from the consequences of that speech is a bipartisan thing. Though I firmly believe my conservative friends are far more prone to this particular malady, whenever a fellow liberal goes off on this tedious tangent, they don’t do it halfway.
The best example of what we speak is an op-ed piece by not-quite-hired U of I professor Steven Salaita in yesterday’s Tribune. I say “not-quite-hired” because when the folks in Champaign got wind of the professor’s questionable tweets, they rescinded their job offer.

Steven Salaita
Steven Salaita

So Salaita bitterly complained that the University done him wrong and, in the name of all First Amendment holiness, he’s fighting to keep his job and for college faculty and students all across this great nation of ours.
But the professor’s first problem is his repeated use of the words “fired,” “termination,” and “reinstatement,” because, unless you’re in a Seinfeld episode, you have to be hired before you can be fired and then reinstated. Someone needs to tell the professor the difference between a withdrawn offer and a pink slip.
And all Salaita had to do is avoid Twitter for one short month and his pending Board of Trustee approval would’ve been a slam dunk. After that, the unfettered cyber-floor would be his for the tenured taking!
C’mon! Any decent middle school teacher regularly warns their young charges against the indiscriminant use of social media.
Then the professor tried to explain his passionate Twitter outburst by claiming, “I posted tweets critical of Israel’s actions, mourning in particular the death of more than 500 of Gaza’s children.” Considering some of his previous tweets (Yikes!), Hamas aren’t the only ones willing to solicit sympathy on the backs of dead children.
And his short musings were not merely “critical of Israel’s actions” nor did they “ask difficult questions and find answers that challenge conventional wisdom.” They were blatant blanket statements designed to disparage, dismiss and debase.
In light of three murdered Israeli teenagers, one advocated the mass murder of West Bank settlers. Another referred to anti-Semitism as something potentially “honorable,” and a third relegated anyone with the temerity to defend Israel to sub-human status.
So much for the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.
So I’m still trying to figure out exactly what Salaita meant when he said his academic career was being “destroyed over gross mischaracterizations of a few 140-character posts.” Dude! As a former eight-year Sun-Times Media Network opinion columnist who frequently tested the boundaries, even I think you went too far.
Salaita attempted to justify his vitriol by asking us to consider his more moderate tweets and entire body of Twitter work before condemning him. But isn’t that like saying, in order to truly understand me, you have to read the bumper stickers on all seven of my cars? And doesn’t that excuse remind you of the NFL abuser who insists he should be absolved for the latest punch because, yesterday, he bought her flowers?
Then Salaita went on to “clarify” the “true meaning” of two of his oft cited tweets in 619 characters which perfectly demonstrates the inherent peril of being relegated to just 140.
And finally, our intrepid professor claimed this kerfuffle has nothing to do with his exemplary classroom work.
That’s true!
If he was almost-hired by a college that only cared about the classroom, he’d probably still have an almost-job. But even Sheldon Cooper eventurally realized that a university is an expensive proposition that greatly relies upon the kindness of wealthy benefactors. And if you aggravate one or more of those donors, especially when you don’t quite have tenure, it probably won’t turn out too well.
But the most ironic thing in this fascinating scenario is, contrary to Salaita’s hypothesis, it actually proves that unfettered freedom of speech is alive and well.
The professor said exactly what was on his mind without being jailed, tortured, or shot. A couple of wealthy alumni exercised their freedom of speech through their wallets. Sixteen separate U of I departments used their First Amendment rights to vote no confidence in the administration, as did the professors who are boycotting the University, and the students who are staging protests.
All imagined nefarious intentions aside, what I can tell you with certainty is, if any red-blooded American citizen lights up Facebook with comments casting a shadow over their company or their boss this evening, I guarantee you they will not have a job tomorrow.
Better yet, try telling your wife (or girlfriend) those pants really do make her butt look big and see what happens.
We’re talkin’ simple Newtonian cause and effect. There ain’t nuthin’ the least bit McCarthy about any of this.
You see, the real problem is that Professor Salaita isn’t satisfied with freedom of speech. No! What he really wants is freedom from all the consequences of that speech when neither the founding fathers nor the Constitution ever made that kind of promise.
So dude! You’re done! You don’t have a moral leg to stand on. With your talent, I’m sure you’ll catch on somewhere, but it won’t be at the U of I. They’re not going to back down now. Be grateful you learned a tough lesson early enough in life to come back from it.
And lastly, if you truly believe that words should never come with consequences, then why are you teaching?

0 thoughts on “It applies to liberals too!

  1. Nailed it again, Jeff. While I do agree that speaking out against the policies of the government of Israel is NOT automatically anti-Semitic, this guy seems to have crossed that line long ago.

Leave a Reply