January, 29 2015, 02:45pm EDT
![Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012668/origin.png)
Professor Sues University of Illinois Over Firing for "Uncivil" Gaza Tweets
Trustees, Chancellor, President, and Donors Targets of Suit
Chicago, IL
A professor who was fired from a tenured position at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign because of his tweets criticizing the Israeli government's bombing of Gaza last year has filed a civil rights suit against the University and its top officials, saying that his firing violated his First Amendment right to free speech and other constitutional rights, and basic principles of academic freedom.
Dr. Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor of indigenous studies, filed the lawsuit today in a U.S. federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, in Chicago, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the law firm of Loevy & Loevy. The suit alleges that university officials, including the Chancellor and University trustees, violated Salaita's constitutional rights to free speech and due process of law, and breached its employment contract with him. The suit is also against University donors who, based on emails made public, unlawfully threatened future donations to the University if it did not fire Professor Salaita on account of his political views. Those donors are not currently identified by name.
"Like any American citizen, I have the right to express my opinion on pressing human rights concerns, including Israeli government actions, without fear of censorship or punishment. The University's actions have cost me the pinnacle of academic achievement - a tenured professorship, with the opportunity to write and think freely. What makes this worse is that in my case the University abandoned fundamental principles of academic freedom and shared governance, crucial to fostering critical thought, that should be at the core of the university mission," said Professor Salaita.
After a national search and interview process, Professor Salaita had been offered a tenured faculty position in the American Indian Studies program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was due to start working in two weeks when he received a letter from Chancellor Phyllis Wise and Vice President Christophe Pierre terminating his appointment, without notice or explanation. Salaita and his wife had already quit their jobs at Virginia Tech University, where he was tenured. University officials have since acknowledged that their decision was based on Salaita's tweets about Israel's military assault on Gaza, which they viewed as "uncivil."
Last month, the University's Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure concluded that Salaita's termination was improper and called for the University to reconsider its decision and renounce its statement that the action was taken because Salaita's speech lacked "civility." Two weeks ago, the University's board rejected the committee's recommendation to reconsider its decision after allowing qualified academic experts to weigh in, calling its decision final.
"The use of 'civility' as cover for violating Professor Salaita's rights must be challenged, as it threatens the very notion of a University as a place for free inquiry and open debate. There is neither a 'civility' exception nor a 'Palestine' exception to the First Amendment," said Maria LaHood, a senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Professor Salaita's termination violated the University's contractual commitment to him, its own policies and procedures, accepted principles of shared governance and academic freedom, and the United States Constitution."
The lawsuit seeks Salaita's reinstatement and monetary relief that includes compensation for the economic hardship and reputational damage he suffered as a result of the University's actions.
Chancellor Wise has stated that the decision to terminate Salaita was not influenced by pressure from wealthy donors. University documents obtained under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, however, include letters and emails from several donors to Wise openly stating that they would withdraw financial support from the University if it did not fire Salaita. For example, Steven Miller is alleged to have met with Wise to "share his thoughts about the University's hiring of Professor Salaita." Miller is the owner of a Chicago-based venture capital firm and has endowed a professorship at the University in his name. Salaita's letter of termination was dated the same day Wise and Miller met.
"The University's administration has repeatedly said one thing, and then done another. The administration keeps insisting that its decision was not influenced by donor pressure, but yet it has refused to comply with requests for emails from donors to University officials under Illinois government transparency laws. The Chancellor and Board keep saying they are committed to principles of academic freedom and shared governance, but they refuse to follow the recommendation of the University's own Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to allow academic experts on its faculty to weigh in. Prominent nationwide academic organizations and thousands of faculty have all condemned the administration's actions and demanded it reconsider Salaita's firing, but the University still refuses. Only donor pressure, or sheer pride, can explain the administration's stubborn refusal to revisit a decision that has done so much harm to Dr. Salaita and to constitutional and other principles that academics hold dear. The administration has something to hide, and through this lawsuit we intend to expose it," said Anand Swaminathan of Loevy & Loevy.
Since Salaita's firing, the University's leadership has faced increasing nationwide criticism from within the academic community. Sixteen academic departments of the university have voted no confidence in the University Administration, and prominent academic organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, the Modern Language Association, and the Society of American Law Teachers have publicly condemned the university's actions. More than 5,000 academics from around the country have pledged to boycott the institution, resulting in the cancellation of more than three dozen scheduled talks and conferences at the school.
A FOIA litigation lawsuit against the University seeking administrators' email correspondence with donors and other documents remains pending in state court, and there will be hearing on the University's motion to dismiss that case on February 13th.
To read the complaint, visit: https://www.ccrjustice.org/Salaita
Loevy & Loevy is one of the nation's largest and most successful civil rights law firms, dedicated to seeking justice for those whose civil rights have been violated and for whistleblowers. Our willingness to take hard cases to trial and win them has yielded a nationally recognized reputation for success in the courtroom. We only take cases we passionately believe in, we forge close bonds with our clients, and we are proud to have achieved outstanding results for them with truly uncommon consistency. Visit us at www.loevy.com.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
After Months of Delay, US Supreme Court to Rule on Trump Immunity Claim
"The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue."
Jul 01, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But the high court's delay in handing down its decision has already "helped the former president in his effort to avoid trial before the November 5 election," Reutersnoted Sunday, leading to accusations that the court's right-wing supermajority has essentially intervened in the presidential contest on Trump's behalf.
It's been more than four months since the court agreed to take up the case, and more than two months since oral arguments. Trump nominated three of the justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court.
"By not issuing a decision before the debate, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have in effect granted Donald Trump the immunity from trial he seeks—at least through the election," attorney Norm Eisen and Mike Podhorzer of the Defend Democracy Project said in a statement after yet another week passed without a decision in the closely watched case.
"By agreeing to take up the presidential immunity case at all, and then piling on delays, MAGA justices on the court, like the deeply conflicted Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, have used this case to interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election," Eisen and Podhorzer continued. "By stalling so long that a trial is now unlikely, the justices have already succeeded in effectively giving Trump immunity regardless of the content of their ruling."
The immunity decision is one of four expected on Monday, with the rulings set to be released beginning at around 10:00 am ET.
"It's long overdue and frankly outrageous that the Supreme Court has dragged their feet and delayed Trump's January 6th trial for months," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote on social media. "The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history."
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the election subversion charges against Trump last year, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the former president's sweeping claim that he should be "absolutely immune from prosecution" for actions he took as president.
"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court in April.
NBC Newsreported ahead of Monday's ruling that "based on the oral arguments, it appeared likely the court would conclude that there could be some conduct alleged in the indictment that is subject to immunity."
"The justices could set a new test for determining what official acts receive immunity and then send it back to lower courts to determine how that affects Trump's indictment," the outlet added.
In an amicus brief, a group of constitutional law experts rejected the notion that Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution for official acts, writing that the former president's claims "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history," the experts wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After First Round of Voting, Will France's Centrists Drop Out to Stop the Fascists?
Leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon said his party's third-place candidates would withdraw from three-way runoffs to help prevent the far-right from seizing power.
Jul 01, 2024
Leaders of France's left-of-center parties vowed Sunday to withdraw their third-place candidates from runoff races in an effort to prevent Marine Le Pen's fascist National Rally from securing an absolute majority in the country's Parliament.
But will centrist candidates follow suit?
That question became critical following the first round of voting in snap parliamentary elections called by French President Emmanuel Macron last month after his party suffered a stinging defeat in European elections. Macron's decision appears to have backfired in a major way.
Le Pen's viciously xenophobic Rassemblement National (RN) prevailed in round one on Sunday, winning 33.2% of the vote, while the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP)—an alliance of left-of-center parties formed ahead of the snap elections to counter the far-right—came in second at 28%. Macron's centrist Ensemble coalition landed in third with 22.4% of the vote.
The decisive second round will be held on July 7, and efforts to stop Le Pen's party from seizing outright control of the National Assembly likely hinge on electoral cooperation between the center and the left. The Financial Timescalculated that the first round of voting "produced more than 300 three-way runoffs... an unprecedented number, although the final figure will depend on how many candidates drop out."
In races qualifying for runoffs, according to FT, Macron's Ensemble alliance had 95 third-place candidates after round one while the left-of-center NFP had 129.
Speaking to supporters Sunday, leftist La France Insoumise (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon said his party would withdraw candidates from races in which they placed third and the far-right NR was in the lead—a vow that the heads of other left-wing parties echoed.
"Our instructions are simple, direct, and clear: not one vote, not one more seat for the RN," said Mélenchon.
"The question that should be asked of every Macronist in the next couple days: Does this line extend to La France Insoumise or not? Right now, it's not clear."
The centrists were much less direct about their intentions.
French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who acknowledged the far-right is "at the gates of power," said the centrist alliance would withdraw candidates from runoffs if their presence would hinder "another candidate—who, like us—defends the values of the Republic," without specifically saying whether he includes leftist LFI candidates in that category.
"The question that should be asked of every Macronist in the next couple days: Does this line extend to La France Insoumise or not? Right now, it's not clear," France-based journalist Cole Stangler wrote Sunday.
Macron similarly urged voters to back candidates who are "clearly republican and democratic." But as The Washington Postobserved, the French president "has at times portrayed the far-left as equally dangerous as the far-right," raising concerns that centrists could allow the far-right to win close races by splitting votes in three-way runoffs that include candidates from Mélenchon's LFI.
As Reutersreported, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire "ruled out calling on voters to choose an LFI candidate" in a radio interview—a position that one senior Greens member denounced as "cowardly and privileged."
One government minister, Roland Lescure, did explicitly urge "all voters to block the extreme right without hesitation by voting for the best-placed alternative candidate," even if it's an LFI candidate.
"The real danger for France today is an absolute majority National Rally," said Lescure. "And we must do everything to prevent it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unprecedented' and 'Very Dangerous,' Hurricane Beryl Explodes Into Category 4 Storm
"The climate crisis is here. This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
Jun 30, 2024
Meteorologists, climate campaigners, and extreme weather experts expressed shock and horror Sunday as Hurricane Beryl exploded into an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm as it headed into the warm waters of the southern Caribbean with a level of intensification characterized as unprecedented.
The National Hurricane Center on Sunday morning called it a "very dangerous situation" due to "potentially catastrophic hurricane-force winds, a life-threatening storm surge, and damaging waves" for the numerous mainland and island nations in Beryl's path.
According to the NHC, the Windward Islands of St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and Granada will be the first at highest risk from the storm as well as St. Lucia and Barbados. People on those islands and elsewhere in the region were told that all preparations for the storm "should be rushed to completion" without delay.
Weather Undergroundreports that subsequent locations that may face Beryl's wrath later this week could be Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Belize and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, though noted "there's uncertainty in that exact track" of the hurricane as detailed in the following graphic:
Possible storm tracks for Hurricane Beryl. (Source: Weather Underground / wunderground.com)
Citing records going back to 1851, the Washington Postreported Sunday that there "is no precedent for a storm to intensify this quickly, nor reach this strength, in this part of the ocean during the month of June."
Eric Blake, a hurricane expert, said that Beryl on Sunday was "rewriting the history books in all the wrong ways," as he urged people in its path to "be very safe and take this hurricane seriously" as "very few will have experienced a hurricane this strong" on those islands.
"This is unreal," said Nahel Belgherze, a journalist focused on extreme weather. "Hurricane Beryl continues to defy all known logic, now becoming the first June Category 4 hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. I can't even stress enough just how completely absurd that storm is."
"The climate crisis is here," said the Sunrise Movement in a social media post showing the extreme power and historic nature of Hurricane Beryl. "This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
The group took the opportunity to re-share its petition calling on President Joe Biden to "declare a climate emergency" as a way to unlock federal funds and escalate the government's response to the crisis of fossil fuels that are the main driving of surging global temperatures.
In May, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that the 2024 hurricane season—which officially runs from June 1 to the end of November—would be "extraordinary" and "above-normal," largely due to rising ocean temperatures attributable to human-caused global warming couple with La Niña conditions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular