[R-G] 'Everyone involved in the dispute over William I. Robinson talks about lines being crossed'

[Anthony Fenton]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/23/ucsb
Crossing a Line
April 23, 2009

Everyone involved in the dispute over William I. Robinson talks about
lines being crossed.

A tenured professor of sociology at the University of California at
Santa Barbara, Robinson said that his critics have crossed lines of
fairness by equating his criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and
that the faculty judicial system is crossing lines that are supposed to
protect academic freedom by investigating him.

His critics say that he crossed a line of professionalism by sending
e-mail to all of the students in one of his courses material about
"parallel" images of Nazi and Israeli attacks. Some students view the
material as anti-Semitic, and they quit the course and filed a grievance
against him.

Faculty members are in the process of selecting a panel that will
consider the charges against Robinson and determine whether to recommend
that a standing faculty panel conduct a full investigation of the
incident. While no action has been taken against him at this time, he
views the inquiries as an attempt to quash criticism of Israel. Robinson
is consulting with lawyers and may sue to block the coming proceedings.

At issue is an e-mail message that Robinson sent to the approximately 80
students in January in a course about sociology and globalization. The
e-mail contained an an article criticizing the Israeli military's
actions in Gaza. Part of the e-mail was an assemblage of photos from
Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews and from Israel's actions in Gaza.
Students were invited to look at the "parallel images." A message from
Robinson argued that Gaza would be like "Israel's Warsaw."

In February, the Anti-Defamation League's Santa Barbara office wrote to
Robinson to protest the e-mail and to urge him to repudiate it. "While
your writings are protected by the First Amendment and academic freedom,
we rely upon our rights to say that your comparisons of Nazis and
Israelis were offensive, ahistorical and have crossed the line well
beyond legitimate criticism of Israel," the letter said. It went on to
say that the "tone and extreme views" in his e-mail were "intimidating
to students," and that using his university e-mail to send "material
that appears unrelated to" his course violated university standards for
faculty members.

Following that letter, two students in the course dropped the class and
filed complaints against Robinson. One student wrote that she felt
"nauseous" upon reading the e-mail, and felt it was inappropriate. She
wrote that the "demonization of Israel" is a form of anti-Semitism, and
that she no longer felt comfortable in the course, after receiving the
"horrific e-mail," and so dropped out.

A second student complaint accusing Robinson of being unprofessional --
also from a student who dropped the course after receiving the e-mail --
said that Robinson has "clearly stated his anti-Semitic political views
in this e-mail." The first student e-mailed to ask Robinson what she was
supposed to do with the material and he replied that it was for her
information, although he now says that the material was part of his
teaching about globalization and that his answer to her meant only that
she didn't have to do anything immediately with the material.

Under Santa Barbara's faculty governance system, such complaints go to a
"charges officer" and then -- if they are serious -- a committee may be
formed, somewhat like a grand jury, to determine whether formal charges
should be brought against the professor. Robinson maintains that the
communication is so clearly covered by academic freedom that the faculty
charges officer should have dropped the matter. Instead, a committee is
being formed to determine whether the charges merit consideration by the
standing committee that considers such allegations and can recommend
sanctions against a professor.

The charges officer sent Robinson an e-mail explaining why the probe was
going ahead to the next stage: "[H]ere is a summary of the allegations:
You, as professor of an academic course, sent to each student enrolled
in that course a highly partisan email accompanied by lurid photographs.
The e-mail was unexpected and without educational context. You offered
no explanation of how the material related to the content of the course.
You offered no avenue to discuss, nor encouraged any response, to the
opinions and photographs included in the e-mail. You directly told a
student who inquired that the e-mail was not connected to the course. As
a result, two enrolled students were too distraught to continue with the
course. The constellation of allegations listed above, if substantially
true, may violate the Faculty Code of Conduct."

He cited rules in the code that bar faculty members from "significant
intrusion of material unrelated to the course" and "use of the position
or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a
student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal  
reasons."

With issues related to the Middle East setting off numerous disputes on
campuses this year, students who back Robinson have created a Web site
with documents on the case and are trying to mobilize support for him.
Robinson's critics, meanwhile, have taken to YouTube.

In an interview Wednesday, Robinson called the charges against him
"absolutely absurd." He noted that he is Jewish and said that he abhors
anti-Semitism, and that his academic freedom is being violated by the
university taking seriously charges that link his e-mail criticisms of
Israel's government with anti-Semitism. "This is all because I have
criticized the policies of the State of Israel."

Robinson said that the fact that the statements were in e-mail and not
during a class session is irrelevant. "Every week I send students a
tremendous amount of material by e-mail," he said. "In the age of the
Internet, academic material is distributed digitally" and must have
academic freedom.

He also rejected the idea that the material was not relevant to the
course. "The course deals with global issues and global society," and
was starting as Israel was attacking Gaza, he said. "Of course it is
part of the course."

As to the comparison that so angered the students and the ADL, Robinson
stands behind it. "The message was not that the Israelis are gassing the
Palestinians, but that the people who suffered the Holocaust are doing
similar things, are doing parallel things," he said. "My position is
that of the international community." He said that in the Warsaw ghetto,
"the Nazis rounded up the Jews and they wouldn't let anyone in or out"
and said that was "exactly and precisely" what Israel has done to Gaza.

Robinson added that "my students can and do debate" his views. (Robinson
also maintains that the university isn't following proper procedure in
his case, and that attempts should have been made to resolve matters
within his department before starting formal proceedings.)

Cynthia Silverman, Santa Barbara regional director for the
Anti-Defamation League, said in an interview that students approached
her group with concerns after receiving the e-mail. Silverman said that
the ADL was not trying to block criticism of Israel. But she said that
"the question is at what point is academic freedom crossing over into
the intimidation of students." Asked if any students had complained that
Robinson punished them for pro-Israel views or wouldn't let them express
their views, she said No.

But she then said that the issue was Robinson distributing material
"completely unrelated to his course." She said that the ADL does not
contest "his right to present controversial material relevant to a
course of instruction," but said that the critique of Israel "really had
nothing to do with the course."

Robinson has called for the Santa Barbara administration to step in and
affirm his rights. But a spokesman for the university noted that this
type of grievance against a faculty member is handled at this stage by
faculty panels, not administrators. If later in the process, a faculty
panel finds that Robinson violated the faculty code of conduct, that
panel would make a recommendation to the campus chancellor, so the
spokesman said that it would be inappropriate for the administration to
weigh in on the case at this time.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of
University Professors, said that the AAUP has not been asked for help in
the case or studied it. But he offered his opinions on some of the
issues raised by the case.

On the issue of the Nazis-Israelis comparison, Nelson said that
"historical comparisons are protected by academic freedom, whether or
not they are endorsed by a majority of other scholars, even if the
analogies are debatable, provocative, or reprehensible."

And on the idea that Robinson may be evaluated for e-mail he sent to
students that some see as irrelevant to the course, he said that
"faculty are free to express their political views to any audience,
including a class, so long as students are not compelled to adopt them
and are free to express their own opinions without fear of penalty." The
issue of relevance to course topics only becomes a valid complaint if
persistent, Nelson said, explaining that "a class cannot be persistently
sidetracked by matters not relevant to the course."
— Scott Jaschik