The University of Illinois board of trustees has a history of not taking seriously charges of racism from indigenous peoples, including those regarding the university’s former mascot. (Image source: Flickr)
Since the news broke a few weeks ago that Steven Salaita’s tenured appointment at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) was rejected by Chancellor Phyllis Wise and, though without a formal vote, by the board of trustees, a great deal of disappointment and outrage has been expressed in social media and in letters to the university.
Some have expressed concern that the university’s decision is unconstitutional and illegal, because it is violates Salaita’s First Amendment rights. Others have argued that the firing contravenes the principle of academic freedom, as well as those of shared governance and unit autonomy within the university. Finally, many have understood this affair as part of a broader silencing of those critical of Israel’s assault on Gaza, suggesting that Salaita is being targeted for political views that are unpopular among the university’s trustees and donors.
While all of these have been crucial interventions, very little attention has been paid thus far to the role of systemic racism and colonialism in the Salaita affair.
This silence with respect to the role of racism and colonialism in this affair might be regarded as somewhat odd, considering that this affair surrounds a highly unusual and drastic action taken by the university against a Palestinian-American scholar and an American Indian Studies program. Somehow these details about the targets of this action are being treated as merely incidental by those academics who are nowconcluding that they, too, could have been Steven Salaita.
If any of us could be Salaita, then racism and colonialism must not have had anything to do with this affair. But perhaps we need to think a bit harder about this conclusion.
First, let’s be clear. Systemic racism and colonialism extend far beyond (and in fact do not require) any conscious, willful intent to be racist or a colonizer (although they often do); rather, they simply need to produce outcomes that reinforce an entrenched historical pattern in which people of color and/or the colonized are disproportionately marginalized or harmed.
As such, these systemic injustices can be produced through any number of actions that are nominally colorblind and/or contain only unrecognized biases. Furthermore, because systemic racism is primarily a trait of a social system, rather than of individuals, it can actually be perpetuated by people of color, including Chancellor Wise and others on the University of Illinois’ board of trustees. In fact, systemic racism often benefits from and seeks out the inclusion of “multicultural diversity” because it helps to deflect attention and blame from ongoing racist outcomes.
With that in mind, there are many questions we should be asking about the role of systemic racism and colonialism in this affair. First, what effect has it had on this case that Salaita is a Palestinian-American and a person of color? As in all cases of systemic injustice, it is extremely difficult to draw any straight causal connections, as these cases are usually determined by several compounding factors at once.
Nonetheless, might it not be more than a mere coincidence that the board of trustees has taken this extremely rare, if not unprecedented, action in a case involving a scholar of color? It could hardly be denied that racism, white supremacy and colonialism shape which research, and which researchers, are considered valuable and which are considered dispensable in the academy. The concerns of those who make up the university are more likely to be recognized as “the” important concerns.
Furthermore, research that is highly critical of prevailing power structures, which is perhaps more likely to be produced by scholars of color, is routinely judged too radical, too biased, too unobjective, to bring on board. This will obviously be true to an even greater extent when one belongs to a group actively being targeted by these power structures, with which the modern university is enmeshed, and when the knowledge one is producing actively confronts and threatens those structures.
Let’s be frank — the kinds of judgments made by the chancellor and trustees about Salaita’s unsuitability happen all the time in academic hiring, but usually at the level of the department screening processes, when the stakes and public scrutiny are much lower or non-existent. Such judgments both reflect and reinforce not only the role of the modern university within structures of power, but also to the underrepresentation of people of color in the academy.
We know very well that white privilege, including that which comes from integration into white academic and administrative networks, often provides white scholars with a higher degree of protection against such actions, as they are more likely to be regarded as likeable and collegial, and to be afforded greater benefit of the doubt with respect to their qualifications, objectivity and competence. This doesn’t make white scholars immune to the type of actions taken in this case — far from it — but it does tend to provide them with a stronger buffer.
In short, the board may not be consciously targeting Salaita because he is a person of color, but race may still be affecting the type of scholar against whom the board would, and would not, be willing to take such a drastic measure.
Let’s also consider the language of “civility” in this affair. The justifications given for Salaita’s termination repeatedly point to the “incivility” of Salaita’s tweets. Of course, the concepts of civility and civilization have a longstanding connection with racism and colonialism in this country, with racialized and colonized peoples regularly portrayed as uncivilized brutes in need of a civilizing mission by their colonial masters and racial superiors. In this case, the board need not have actively thought of Salaita as a savage (although there is some indication that they did); it is enough that racism and colonialism have shaped our society’s standards of civility and in turn our assumptions, habits, biases and judgments about what constitutes “civil” behavior (and who tends to exhibit it).
Again, white privilege often confers greater leeway in this regard with respect to tone, comportment and decorum. But white supremacy also affects which issues are deemed worthy of outrage and “incivility” and which are not — which issues allow for “demeaning and disrespectful words” to be used, and which do not. White privilege is then further distributed to those who only get upset about the “right” things — those who, for example, only become outraged at the massacre of the right kinds of bodies.
It is quite clear that in our society the content and styles of speech (as well as the kinds of speakers) that are likely to be regarded as uncivil(ized) are disproportionately those of indigenous peoples and people of color. Again, this is especially the case when one belongs to a group against whom the United States is actively and publicly involved in carrying out immense colonial violence. Further, the language of incivility is even more likely to be deployed against indigenous women and women of color, for whom misogynistic discourses of women’s emotionality, hysteria and lack of reason come into play to challenge their ability to participate in civil public debate.
Finally, it cannot be regarded as merely coincidental that this highly unusual termination has been directed toward an appointment in the American Indian Studies program. The university’s largely unprecedented step of violating the autonomy of the hiring unit — comprised of those who actually possess the scholarly expertise to make academic appointments — is paternalistic and treats the hiring unit as incompetent in their decisionmaking.
Could this affair not be regarded as yet another instance of the historical pattern of colonial paternalism against indigenous peoples on this land? Is this history not shaping what kind of department the board would be willing to second guess, undermine and override in this way? The long history of colonial interactions between the United States and indigenous peoples continues to structure our society’s habits, assumptions, biases, judgments and institutions, such that indigenous peoples are more often, more easily and more reflexively treated as incapable of making their own decisions, and in greater need of guidance and tutelage.
It is the white man’s — and today an increasingly multicultural elite’s — burden to carry out this civilizing mission. As Jacki Thompson Rand has written, the UIUC administration’s actions in the Salaita affair are “painfully reminiscent of colonial practices” and have “put our colleagues on a reservation where they must ask for permission to step outside its boundaries in matters of program administration, expression of opinion and affiliation.”
The systemic colonial character of this intervention becomes even clearer against the backdrop of the University of Illinois’ ongoing mascot and team name controversy, especially the Illinois board of trustees’ longstanding reticence to take seriously charges of racism from indigenous peoples, and to deal with this controversy in a robust and comprehensive manner.
The board’s recent open letter in response to the Salaita affair provides further evidence, as the board aligns the university’s mission with the American nation-building project — and we all know how this nation-building project has dealt with indigenous peoples who have been viewed as “getting in the way.”
We need to ask some different questions about the Salaita affair, beyond those we have been asking about free speech, academic freedom and Palestine/Israel. Intertwined with all of these issues (and intersecting with related issues of racism and colonialism in Palestine) is the presence of entrenched, systemic racism and colonialism in the United States that not only shapes our society’s judgments, practices and institutional outcomes, but also enables extraordinary and heavy-handed expressions of power to be carried out more easily and reflexively against indigenous peoples and people of color.
Jakeet Singh holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Toronto, and is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics & Government at Illinois State University, where he teaches political theory.
Forty-three veterans from an elite Israeli military intelligence unit have written an open letter refusing to continue operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, as it is aimed at “political persecution” and not the defense of Israel.
The soldiers from Israel Defense Forces intelligence Unit 8200 – many still on active duty – sent the letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday, explaining that they joined the intelligence-gathering unit believing it would protect the State of Israel and not turn into a machine that works to aid the occupation and create divisions within Palestinian society.
“We, veterans of Unit 8200, reserve soldiers both past and present, declare that we refuse to take part in actions against Palestinians and refuse to continue serving as tools in deepening the military control over the Occupied Territories,” they said in the letter, addressed also to the head of the Military Intelligence Directorate and the IDF Chief of Staff.
“It is commonly thought that the service in military intelligence is free of moral dilemmas and solely contributes to the reduction of violence and harm to innocent people. However, our military service has taught us that intelligence is an integral part of Israel’s military occupation over the territories.”
They also mentioned how, unlike with Israeli citizens, there is virtually no protection of Palestinians from surveillance, nor any limits to it.
The information gathered, they said, “harms innocent people. It is used for political persecution and to create divisions within Palestinian society by recruiting collaborators and driving parts of Palestinian society against itself.”
They explained that it is a decision based on conscience and a realization that continuing to carry out their duties effectively robs millions of their human rights. The letter was also driven by a sense of “urgency and responsibility,” one captain in the reserves, Daniel, told the Haaretz newspaper.
“In the end, I served there for seven years. I believed in what we did there — and for all those reasons, I must take responsibility for what I see as the perpetuation of the cycle of violence. We hope that people will think critically about these things,” he said.
Israel Radio relayed the reaction of Palestinian intelligence. Their spokesman, Adnan Damiri attested to the positive reception of the IDF signatories’ initiative back home, saying that the humanitarian and moral character of their decision was notable and appreciated.
Haaretz also reached the IDF to get some comment on how the letter was perceived.
The official spokesman, explaining the delicate nature of Unit 8200’s work and its central role in protecting Israel, went on to state that “the content of [the unit’s] training places special emphasis upon the fields of ethics, morals and work procedures. These are put into practice during their service as soldiers and officers of the unit, and they are under the constant supervision of commanding officers of various ranks.”
“The concrete claims made in the report are unknown in the Intelligence Directorate,” he said. “The fact that the alleged signatories of this letter contacted the media before bringing their complaints to their commanding officers or relevant agencies in the army is surprising and raises doubts regarding the sincerity of their claims.”
He told the newspaper that harm to innocent civilians is minimized because of a “long and meticulous” procedure for choosing targets, which “take the topic of uninvolved parties into account.”
This is not the first instance that a complaint was publicly filed by the unit’s own members questioning its methods.
According to The Guardian, a decade-old case involved several pilots who refused to take part in targeted assassination missions. This is seen as a very rare case in the Israeli military, where commitment, as well as a desire to extend the service, seems to be commonplace.
Although those involved told the newspaper they were proud of some of the missions inasmuch as they served to defend Israel, they also pointed to how there was also a culture of impunity which frowned upon questioning the legality of any decisions taken and strategies planned by superiors.
This somewhat contrasts with the IDF spokesman’s words to Haaretz.
The servicemen told The Guardian there were “no rules” regarding the procedure for targeting Palestinians for intelligence purposes or to be used as informants.
One soldier, Nadav, 26, told the British newspaper: “In intelligence – in Israel intelligence regarding Palestinians – they don’t really have rights… Nobody asks that question. It’s not [like] Israeli citizens, where if you want to gather information about them you need to go to court.”
“The intelligence gathering about Palestinians is not clean. When you rule a population that does not have political rights, laws like we have, [then] the nature of this regime of ruling over people, especially when you do it for many years, [is that] it forces you to take control or infiltrate every aspect of their life,” Nadav said.
Another added that the perception of Israeli intelligence is full of moral misconceptions and that “what the IDF does in the occupied territories is rule another people. One of the things you need to do is defend yourself from them, but you also need to oppress the population.”
All in all, the idea voiced by the soldiers is that without coercion and repression, there can be no governance. Controlling the population this way is a necessary part of compliance, they explained.
NOTICE OF DATA BREACH Dear User, We are writing to inform you about a data security issue that may involve your Yahoo account information. What Happened? A copy of certain user account information was stolen from our systems in late 2014 by what we believe is a state-sponsored actor. We are closely coordinating with law...
12:15am EDT Breaking News The hashtag #GasShortage is trending on twitter for Tennessee. It will soon be trending elsewhere. My brother reported to me a few minutes ago that Gas stations in Greensboro NC are out of gas and those truck stops have only about 7000 Gallons as of 1155pm EST. The immediate...
World Peace: The Final Chapter By Brooks Agnew Notes from 04 September 2016 World peace has been cited by pageant misses as their life’s work for more than a century. It is the stuff of happily ever fairy tales and Mendala shifting Disney movies. Guard dropping press releases misled Neville Chamberlain and countless other kings to...
Forgiveness by Luckee1 as heard on 30 August 2016 http://tfrlive.com/luckee-with-truth-frequency-news-66847/ I know when I was a girl, I was told that we had to forgive others. The adults, especially those associated with church, always talked about forgiving others. They also talked about how Jesus died for our forgiveness. They would talk about things like forgive your...
Original post is: Watch as amazing GcMAF treatment kills cancer cells in real time… holistic doctors ‘suicided’ over this stunning breakthrough A breakthrough cancer treatment appears to be the reason why a handful of holistic doctors were recently found “suicided” is now gaining worldwide attention as a potential universal cure for cancer. And new microscopic...
Liberty Under Attack is your home for anarchism in action. By way of The Freedom Umbrella of Direct Action, Shane and Jason provide you with the tools necessary to find freedom NOW, without asking for permission. If you're looking to break free from the shackles of the State, great philosophical and economic discussions, or just an entertaining talk radio show, look no further--political crusading has never and will never set the slave free. It's time for direct action. ...