Salaita & Neoliberalism

     The class discussion of Professor Steven Salaita upset me for a number of reasons. The first was that I did not know that this stark injustice was taking place. The firing or “the decision not to hire” Professor Salaita is a blatant blow to academic freedom and the concept of tenured positions. I am well aware that I am no expert on the Israeli conflict, and for the purpose of my argument, it does not matter. Drawing on the ideas of neoliberalism as presented in Duggan’s The Twilight of Equality?, I would like to uncover how this academic situation is a signifier of this larger ideological framework.

            One of the key facets of neoliberalism is the assumption that our society can by wholly inclusive because all it takes is hard work and dedication to succeed (success defined fiscally, of course). This type of thinking gives no credence to social boundaries due to race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. However, in reality, a neoliberalist society can only  operate with exclusivity in play – mostly in regards to money, political power, and general public influence. This conundrum is certainly made clear in the case of Salaita. By the standard, he acted in a neoliberalist manner by working hard (myth of meritocracy), advancing academically, and making strategic decisions about the best job situation for both himself and his family. If he had any obstacles due to social barriers, it would appear that he has overcome them due to his success. However, because there is the exclusivity of powerful donors that operates heavily upon their personal views, he was terminated – thus revealing that inclusivity and personal liberty are not always at the forefront of the neoliberalist agenda. As Kiara so eloquently stated in class, “This is what happens when you commodify human lives. When they become threatened, it is a threat to your investment.” (clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap…)

            Considering the neoliberalist nature of the corporatization of academia, it is interesting that the entire grounds for Salaita’s firing defy the separation of the public and private spheres. Neoliberalism promotes that the government stay out of private business and keep social regulation to a minimum. However, Salaita was certainly regulated when being chastised for his both public and personal tweets (private thoughts to him, but made public via social media). Robin G. Kelly tried to combat this in his letter to the Chancellor: “…nothing in your public statements or related documents suggests that Professor Salait’s scholarship is at issue.” Thus, Salaita’s firing is a direct result of neolibralist hypocrisy; if identity politics and personal experiences/views cannot inhibit success and only hard work and dedication can guarantee it, then Salaita has been cheated.    

            The analyzation of this issue leads me to more general questions about power, character, and controversy. We look at situations like Salaita’s (or at SUNY, as described by Duggan), and we recognize it immediately as an injustice. Salaita’s personal thoughts/actions should have no effect on his employment status, especially since we was outside/off campus at the time (also…academic freedom matters). But as I brought up in class, what does it mean when there are other situations that are similar, but we do agree with the decision? For example, Ray Rice was terminated from his NFL contract because of domestic violence and Adrian Peterson suspended for allegations of child abuse. As feminists and social activists, we agree with and support this decision. The National Organization of Women even called for Goodell’s resignation because these activities were occurring under his leadership of the NFL (just like the Revolting Behavior conference was happening under Roger Bowen at SUNY). Perhaps I am comparing apples to oranges by insisting that we draw a parallel between the NFL and academia, but the premise to me seems the same: Ray Rice is a misogynist and abuser, Adrian Peterson is an abuser, Roger Bowen supports sex perversion, Goodell is a misogynist, Salaita is a racist. All of these people, labeled as deviant by others, lost their job or were asked to leave their job due to the actions or presumed attitudes present in their personal lives. Because I do believe the personal is political and that private thoughts/actions do inform your public presence and job performance, I support the fact that people should be fired for doing bad things, especially when it involved hurting and abusing other people. The issue then, is who defines “bad,” “hurting,” and “abusing.” In most cases, it is those with the money who have the say. In the case of Salaita, he is viewed by Board of Trustee members as bad and hurting other people with his comments that they have interpreted as racist. Unfortunately, no amount of hard work on Salaita's part will be able to reverse this decision. Instead, others will have to mobilize to call out those in power for their hypocrisy and help redefine what is acceptable.