The following is my correspondence with Norman Finkelstein, and Assistant Professor at DePaul University and author on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, regarding the petition by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East for the reinstatement of Adjunct Professor Tom Klocek, who was punished by the DePaul Administration for expressing a Pro-Israel viewpoint to muslim student groups — Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and United Muslims Moving Ahead (UMMA) — which was deemed by the administration as unacceptable “offensive behavior.” (Edited for spelling and grammar.)
(For background information, read the press release by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):“DePaul University: Professor Suspended for Expression without Due Process.”
From: Grant Crowell <gcrowell@grantasticdesigns.com>
To: Norman Finkelstein <normangf@hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: Eyewitness Supports Klocek’s Charges Against DePaul University
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:15:42 -0500
Dear Norman,
I remember our pleasant exchange when you were invited to speak at McHenry Community College and the Thomas Klocek issue was brought up. Below is a press release that just came out today regarding a court case deposition.
I would like to ask you, if I may switch roles from observer to advocate, if you would be willing to now consider making any kind of public statement in support of Professor Klocek’s situation (including free speech rights), including supporting his request for an apology from DePaul and rehiring him back at his position without mention of this incident on his record.
Thank you in advance and I hope to hear from you.
Grant Crowell
More…
From: Norman Finkelstein <normangf@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:36:58 -0400
To: <gcrowell@grantasticdesigns.com>
Subject: RE: FW: Eyewitness Supports Klocek’s Charges Against DePaul University
I am not sure why you would expect me to make a statement on the basis of ONE DEPOSITION. Isn’t the rational approach to hear out all sides, and weigh all the evidence before making a statement? I am still not even aware of whether or why Klocek was fired. In addition I certainly do not believe that on a university campus the standard should be PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. If a professor makes an obscene gesture at a student, it certainly should be grounds for disciplinary action. It’s a university after all and not a bar. Again, I emphasize if. I do not yet know the facts of the case. On the other hand, if it were merely a conversation that got heated, I see no grounds for disciplinary action – although I think as a matter of propriety professors should have heated conversations with other professors and let students have heated conversations with other students, which is why I rarely intrude my views in a student newspaper: it’s their forum, not mine.
More… From: Grant Crowell <gcrowell@grantasticdesigns.com>
To: Norman Finkelstein <normangf@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eyewitness Supports Klocek’s Charges Against DePaul University
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:17:09 -0500
Dear Norman,
Perhaps I can explain a little better. To the best of my understanding, DePaul has produced no witnesses during the deposition phase of its own that could offer any conflicting statements than those offered by Professor Klocek’s legal representation. An earlier announcement was also issued by the sitting judge saying that Klocek’s claims have merit and strongly rebuking the administration’s and student groups’ reactions to attempt to silence him. (Please view press release below for what I am referring to.)
I had sent you some information a while back on the reasons for why Klocek was supsended without pay (not fired, althought that was the imminent threat by the DePaul administration did he not agree to their terms and give an apology admitting full wrongdoing). However since you still seem to be under the impression that Professor Klocek may have made some type of obscene gesture or was physically violent, I would strongly suggest that if you do find it important to learn the facts about this case, I strongly invite you to check out The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)’s web site where they have reported this full situation at http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/678.html.
With all due respect, I don’t understand how you would perceive this as a matter not shared for discussion with DePaul’s students. I would think that whatever rulings the DePaul administration makes on a single faculty member, adjunct or otherwise, could potentially have the same affect on other faculty members. In turn, if the faculty are wrongly punished, then the students are wrongly punished as well by not having full and fair access to you as teachers, especially if any one of you are being restricted for sharing potentially unpopular thoughts (or having your own gestures misperceived and possibly exaggerated by others). Teachers interact with students all the time, just like I’m sure you do not just in your classroom but in other campus and off-campus activities and events. The campus newspaper, the DePaulia, is open for everyone to contribute to, including faculty and administration (as many of your fellow faculty and a number of administrators already have with the paper, including those voicing their own opinion over the situation with Professor Klocek.)
My concern is that based on what you’ve expressed, I really don’t think you understand what is going on not just with Professor Klocek, but at your own university. Several student groups and outside free speech advocacy groups are claiming that DePaul is suffering the worst record of any university in the entire nation of not respecting the free speech rights of certain students and faculty alike, and on the basis of their content. Today it is Klocek’s speech (or “perceived speech”) that is deemed unpopular by select administrators and political groups that wield an unbalanced amount of power into campus affairs. I would hate to think that other people on campus may someday soon find themselves in the same situation over their own perceived unpopular speech, and largely because they didn’t take the effort to look at the case of one of their peers more closely and publicly show their support for the principles of free speech for all.
I hope you will give this a closer look and reconsider. Either way, I do thank you for correspondence.
GC
More…On 6/2/06 10:27 AM, “Norman Finkelstein” <normangf@hotmail.com> wrote:
I read the President’s letter. Why didn’t Klocek use DePaul’s grievance procedure?
>More…From: Grant Crowell <gcrowell@grantasticdesigns.com>
To: Norman Finkelstein <normangf@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DePaul’s grievance procedure
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:07:56 -0500
Norman,
Tom himself asked me to forward you his answer, since he was experiencing some e-mail problems earlier today. If you already received his letter then you can ignore this. — GC
From: <teklocek@uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:59:08 -0500
To: <normangf@hotmail.com>
Professor Finkelstein:
I have never met you personally but believe that you are as concerned about
freedom of speech and academic freedom as I am. My situation at DePaul
University has been variously portrayed, and by this missive I should like to
clarify some of the more controversial of them. First, I had a conversation with
several students at an officially sponsored Acivities Fair on September 15, 2004.
At no time did this turn into an argument, there was no violence nor threat of
violence. there was no throwing of papers nor shoving by anyone involved. It
was in fact an
exchange of views on the Middle East. It was not until I was leaving the
premises that I identified myself as a member of the DePaul faculty.
Nine days later I was suspended with pay from the School for New Learning
(where I had worked as an adjunct for 14 years with an unblemished record)
based upon the charges brought against me by the student groups(Students for
Justice in Palestine and United Muslims Moving Ahead). Although I offered to sit
down with the students in an attempt to reconciliate the situation, this was
denied me by the Dean. Additionally, I have never received a written statement
of the specific charges against me. As to a formal hearing, it has never been
clear what such a meeting could accomplish for an adjunct(the Faculty
Handbook itself does not explain this), so I have declined the “offer.” Adjuncts
are hired on an as needed basis, so even a favorable outcome from the
Academic Council would not help resolve anything.
The University has changed the rules of the game in my case several times. At
first, it was simply adequate to agree to “moitororing” in future classroom
assignments to check on my “behavior.” When I finally agreed to this rather
humiliating condition because of my financial circumstances, the Dean informed
me that this would not be enough. I would have to apologize to the students.
At this point, I refused and sought legal remedy.
Professor , the issue here is larger than any one individual. It concerns the very
essence of what a university should be, a place for the unfettered exchange of
ideas, no matter how unpopular or controversial. You are no stranger to this in
your own career. Please join with me in calling for a rededication to the cause
of free speech and academic freedom at DePaul. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Respectfully,
Thomas E. Klocek
(Former) Adjunct, School for New Learning, DePaul University
More…
On 6/7/06 1:52 PM, “Norman Finkelstein” <normangf@hotmail.com> wrote:
I answered him directly. He makes no argument for not going through the grievance procedure. Neither do you. You teach at DePaul; you know that using this procedure is standard. I’ve had my problems at Depaul. I went through the grievance procedure. Why didn’t he?
More… From: Grant Crowell <grantcrowell@earthlink.net>
To: Norman Finkelstein <normangf@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: DePaul’s grievance procedure
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:14:58 -0500
Norman,
I’m not a teacher at DePaul, although I am curious as to why you got that impression. (I actually speak to professors at business colleges in the field of Web Search Engine studies, but that’s part of my commercial business.)
I think Tom clearly explained that the grievance procedure does not lend itself to the special circumstances an adjunct professor faces. Unlike someone in your tenured position, should Tom have gone through the grievance procedure, he still would always be subject to having his position terminated following the very next semester, without any reason needing to be given. That’s a very convenient way for universities and many institutions to get rid of someone without even having to address this issues of his free speech rights being violated. Its the same in the commercial world with a ¡°right to work¡± state, where you can just have your position terminated or restructured so as to avoid a lawsuit for actually discriminating against someone.
This is also a practice at many college newspapers where individual reporters or columnists are gotten rid of for expressing unpopular speech. The same type of grievance procedure exists to favor the administration, where the same person can just simply not be rehired the next semester even if they win their case.
Norman, I’m glad to hear that you found DePaul’s grievance procedure to serve you well. However, I think you can see that as a tenured professor, you are shielded from the administration using such loopholes as they would with Tom Klocek. It would do him no good to wait through one long procedure and leave himself open to no protections for termination even after going through all of that, which is what is currently the case with DePaul’s grievance procedure. It simply does not afford Tom Klocek any substantial protections that you were fortunate enough to have.
I do thank you for your correspondence and for sharing your perspective with Tom – I’m sure he appreciates it. I know it would be much easier at least in the short term just not to be bothered about it, but I appreciate your sharing your viewpoint and allowing me to further explain my case. It is my hope that you will change your mind and offer one of your fellow colleagues some semblance of public support, and I’ll continue to hold out for that as this case progresses.
Sincerely,
Grant Crowell
More…
On 6/7/06 11:15 PM, “Norman Finkelstein” <normangf@hotmail.com> wrote:
All your suppositions are wrong:
(1) I am not a tenured faculty at Depaul;
(2) I was not happy with the results of the grievance procedure.
I simply stated that everyone is obliged to go through the grievance procedure. This is standard. You always have the option of later saying it was a fraud or sham. But not even to attempt the grievance procedure and instead run to a lawyer, create a big public issue on all these right-wing web sites, pretend to martyrdom and then publicly implicate me (“Why isn’t Finkelstein fired?”), seems peculiar and – let’s be honest – suspicious. I am not at all convinced this couldn’t have been settled amicably and, if I’m mistaken, he had ample time to seek out legal redress. I also do not believe aspects of his account of what happened. I know the students involved personally. They wouldn’t lie to me, even as we have our differences. But Klocek’s claim that it never went beyond a loud squabble is not supported by numerous eyewitnesses. If you spoke honestly on this matter, I could tell you where I stand. But I cannot deal honestly with dishonest people.
More…—– Original Message —–
From: Grant Crowell <mailto:grantcrowell@earthlink.net>
To: Norman Finkelstein <mailto:normangf@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:33 PM
Subject: My reply to your last letter, Mr. Finkelstein
Norman,
There is absolutely no need to be snippy and accusatory with me. Its an honest mistake to assume you were tenured at DePaul, and if I understand correctly you are actually up for tenure this year. Just like you made an honest mistake with me by assuming that I was a teacher at DePaul, even though I never suggested that I was.
I understand you are adamant about every faculty member – tenured, non-tenured, adjunct or otherwise – going through the administration’s grievance procedure. You understand there is certainly no requirement for that in any court of law, nor that nor does it negate the incidents which may have taken place against a plaintiff. But you shouldn’t be so accusatory of Thomas Klocek for his decision to do so and label him as a pretending martyr, and this all as some right-wing plot. (I’m a left-leaning Libertarian myself, and issues like free speech cut across party lines.) There are many left-leaning individuals in faculty across this nation that have opted not to follow their University’s grievance procedure and have opted for the same legal choices that Professor Klocek has. Its not a matter of your’s or anyone’s political preference – its about fairness under the law, which DePaul is no less obligated to abide by.
As for it being settled amicably, you were already made aware that Professor Klocek did originally ask for a sit-down meeting with the political student groups who made their grievance, as a way to talk and work out what could have just been left as a misunderstanding. The student groups refused, and instead chose to take their case to the DePaul Administration via several legal organizations (which is as much their right to do so as well).
However Norman, it is most disingenuous for you to accuse me of any dishonesty. I have been completely up front with you about everything, and I don’t know why you feel so threatened by it. Only now after all this back-and-forth correspondence are you now saying that you originally had decided to side with the students, who want Klocek fired and blackballed from making a living in teaching anywhere. (Those are their statements.) Before you had said you don’t get involved in matters involving students, but clearly you have. That’s not being honest at all.
I’m glad the student groups have you as a confidant, but you cannot honestly know whether someone is always telling you the truth or not. If you want to believe them and find it easier to assume that Klocek is lying (and not have the same correspondence with him as you did with the student groups), that’s your prerogative. But don’t pretend it to be as some sort of fact-finding or a fair inquiry; your decision is motivated by own personal preferences and political affiliation, or career opportunism. (Which sadly, is supporting the stereotype that left-wing “progressive” academics have a very illiberal attitude and application of free speech for all.)
Norman, I don’t know if you’re capable of really being honest of where you personally stand on this, but now I doubt it really matters. At least try being honest about this, since it doesn’t involve Klocek but your direct name: Did you send in an e-mail to the Islamic feminist author Israd Manji, asking if there was a petition to support death threats against her person and her fellow free-thinking Islamist scholars? Your name is right up in there in the site saying you did.
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/petition.html
I hope you’ll at least consider it important enough to your reputation to clarify whether or not you sent such am e-mail and were serious, or if that was just your idea of a joke. Obviously they’re suggesting that you align yourself with religious supremacist groups who believe in the brutal murder of independent thinkers in the name of Islam, which many would considered to be very defamatory if it were false. If you value your credibility as an anti-totalitarian protestor, you would do well to clear that matter up with them. And somehow, Norman, I doubt going through DePaul’s grievance process will make you look any better on this one.
You have a good day and enjoy your freedom in America. (And for now, at DePaul.)
–Grant Crowell
More…
On 6/22/06 10:21 PM, “Norman Finkelstein” <NormanGF@hotmail.com> wrote:
I’m not sure what to make of this. It is again replete with suppositions for which you haven’t the slightest basis. To reiterate:
(1) It is standard to use a grievance procedure before making recourse to legal assistance. I cannot imagine why one would not want first to use the grievance procedure. You present no argument; you simply state Klocek has the option not to use it, which is true, but that’s not an explanation;
(2) I have talked to many persons, students and administrators, who were present at the incident.
Klocek’s description does not jibe with what they told me. This is a completely separate matter from where I stand on the issue. It’s a factual question: I do not find Klocek’s categorical denials convincing.
Everything else you say on this matter is pure gibberish, so I won’t bother responding.
Regarding Martyr #2 Irshad Manji:
(1) Manji claims she was the object of a serious death threat;
(2) People who are the objects of serious death threats go to a law enforcement agency; they don’t organize petitions;
(3) I’ve received many death threats. I consider them unserious and ignore them. Professor Said was the object of a serious death threat. He didn’t ask friends to sign a petition stating: “Please do not kill Professor Said.” He went to the FBI. A rational person would understand how preposterous Manji’s latest stunt is; it seems you don’t;
(4) The only one who organizes petitions for alleged death threats are desperate publicity-seekers and Salman Rushdie wannabes (photo-op #1 on Manji’s website);
(5) Were you not an imbecile but a rational human being you’d understand what my point was: The only rational basis for a petition against a death threat is a petition for a death threat. But alas you can’t understand this because in your demented universe Manji is an “Islamic feminist author,” “free-thinking Islamist” and on and on. Did you happen to read the Times op-ed by this moral paragon titled “How I learned to love the wall”? Oh, such courage – braving those alleged death threats as she sings the praises of Israel’s little ghetto. I didn’t know that “left-leaning libertarians” favored caging in human beings. Live and learn, I suppose.
More…
—— Forwarded Message
From: Grant Crowell <grantcrowell@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:55:47 -0500
To: Norman Finkelstein <NormanGF@hotmail.com>
Conversation: Those death threats
Subject: Re: Those death threats
Norman,
I’m going to put aside your name-calling and emotional tirade as someone who’s just nervous about whether or not DePaul will grant them tenure, and get to the actual substance of our conversation. Its silly that I have to educate you on your own school’s policies, but since you did lose your own case you may be able to learn something this time around. (And besides, you did originally think I was a DePaul teacher.)
(1) DePaul’s grievance procedure was acknowledged by DePaul’s own administration and numerous faculty, and incomplete and unspecific, not legally binding, and sometimes avoided altogether, often on the recommendation of legal council (as was with Klocek, but also sometimes exercised by the administration, too). Even other professors and administrators admitted that it was never suited for handling cases with adjunct professors. If something is not an effective means of handling a grievance, then it would be foolish of anyone to waste their time using it just to please the whims of the administration or those like you who failed in their own grievance exercise. So you can look back now on your foolishness and learn from it the next time you want to complain about something or someone to your employers. But taking out your frustration on someone else who exercises better judgment, well that’s just childish bemoaning.
(2) Saying you’ve talked to so many people you claim were present at the incident in question, and yet not a single one of them can be presented for this court case? Not even a single one available to the public? (And Norman, by “witnesses” we mean actual 3rd parties — not the same Muslim student groups who came to you whom you chose to believe solely on their hearsay.) I would offer you $1,000 just to produce a single witness who would go on the record for DePaul. I mean, since you claim to know of so many, that should be a relatively easy thing to do. Just one, now? Or are we supposed to believe that all of these people only would talk to you as some kind of private confessional? Or do you make claims just to act self-important and smug, thinking that showing proof isn’t a requirement of a professor who’s applying for tenure?
And Norman, dismissing certain points as “gibberish” really comes across as you not having an answer to a rational query. Don’t pretend you have anything other than a loss for words. (Last time you said you wanted to check with Noam Chomsky before you could form your own opinion, remember? If you really expect to deserve tenure, its time to think for yourself with taking instructions from a Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill. Otherwise your students can just read their books and you can sit in their classes.)
Now for your self-created nemesis, Irshad. (I didn’t realize you felt so threatened by independent Muslim feminists.): How do you know she didn’t go to the police? You didn’t. You see, all I had to do was simply ask and found out that she had filed a police report. If you don’t feel like you own her an apology for being wrong, you have no basis to dismiss death threats against her because the ones you claim you’ve had were trivial. That’s like apples and oranges. For someone who’s supposed to have built a pedigree in Arab-Islamic affairs, you cannot pretend to not know that many authors, artists, and politicians have been murdered in the Muslim world and the European world — or at the very least imprisoned or under house confinement for their own security – because of barbaric, murderous jihadists who consider any criticism or satire of Islam as a just cause for bloody death. (Van Gough, hello? Danish newspapers and Mohammed cartoons? Wake up?? You’re alive and never had any physical harm come to you, and you stay away from criticism of anti-free speech muslims, safe move.) Thinking your bold because you can only criticize Israel and speak nothing about the oppression of free speech under Sharia law.. And call people names who are bold enough to do what would have you soil your own panties… Lets just say that you and DePaul share each other’s “Catholic courage.”
Now Norman, I do have to chuckle at you using an e-mail to call me an “imbecile” and “demented.” Too bad you weren’t as bold with me at McHenry Community College when you had plenty the chance. What did you do when I told the audience what really happened with Klocek at DePaul, after catching yourself just repeating what was told to you with nary evidence? You groveled to me and the crowd and admitted that you shouldn’t have been so quick to judge. You see, you can pretend that writing an e-mail must make you tough, but you sure didn’t show any backbone in person when I was there right in front of you. You just say the word and I’ll be glad to meet you face to face and let you try again, I promise not to do anything to make you feel intimidated this time. Just don’t pretend your small physique is going to make anyone think you’re some kind of bad-ass because a school gave you a computer with e-mail. It takes more than just being a DePaul employee these days to impress anyone.
Your choice… Cubby hole or real world?
Grant
