I realize this story probably isn’t of much interest to anybody who doesn’t live in the state of Illinois but it’s stuck in my craw. Illinois, which has been operating without a budget for six months and the largest city of which is on the verge of bankruptcy, is shelling out $2 million:
The University of Illinois’ decision last year to revoke a job offer to controversial professor Steven Salaita will cost more than $2 million, including an $875,000 settlement that trustees approved Thursday.
Salaita, who lost a tenured faculty position after posting a string of anti-Israel comments on social media, will get $600,000 in the deal in exchange for dropping two lawsuits against the university and agreeing he will never work at U. of I.
Salaita’s attorneys will get $275,000.
The settlement — to be paid out within 30 days — is on top of the $1.3 million in legal fees the university has spent during the past 14 months on Salaita-related issues, including a federal suit brought by Salaita that alleged breach of contract and violation of his free speech rights.
Trustees voted 9-1 to approve the agreement, in which the university admits no wrongdoing. The settlement will be paid for by self-insurance and institutional funds, which includes some taxpayer money. Trustee Timothy Koritz voted against it, saying the trustees’ decision last year to rescind the offer was “in the best interest of students.”
My question is whether Dr. Salaita’s termination was consistent with written university policies? If it wasn’t, I see no reason the university and, ultimately, the state should be saddled with the bill. If it was, fire the university’s lawyers. And think about legal malpractice.
The key point here is that I, in my capacity as Mr. Illinois Taxpayer, am paying for this nonsense and I have virtually no control over it. I have virtually no say in who becomes a university president. I have virtually no say in the rules under which the state universities operate. And yet I’m on the hook for their malfeasance.
It has been a while since this was in the news, mostly because it was another example of how criticizing a politically favored group gets someone fired. However, it sticks in my mind that the trustees fired the guy w/o much legal input. If anyone should be fired or sued for malpractice, it is probably the trustees.
Steve
I agree but I’d be willing to bet a shiny new dime that nothing will happen to them. It’s the same here in Chicago WRT police misconduct. I don’t think the city should be paying settlements to victims for express violations of departmental policy by police officers. I also think that if the settlements started coming out of police officers’ pay things might actually change here. When Party A commits a crime and Party B is punished for it, it doesn’t do much to change Party A’s behavior, does it?
I’ve not followed too closely, but I think the issue was that Salaita was offered a job teaching American Indian studies, afterwards he tweeted a number of obnoxious(*) tweets about Israel, and then the School trustees refused to approve the job. His primary legal complaint was “promissory estoppel,” that he was offered a job, told (according to him) that trustee approval was a rubber-stamp, and in justified reliance on the school’s promise, he quit his job at Virginia Tech.
Promissory estoppel is an equity concept, which means that the context and all of the facts matter. It is reluctantly applied against the government, though the counterargument will be that such deference is not suited for business dealings of government. Was the temperament shown in the tweets new information relevant to the ultimate hiring decision, which Salaita should have known would be unacceptable. Can school administrators waive the legal responsibilities of the trustees?
This was winnable though it would require a lot of discovery and would almost certainly go to trial. Then it was revealed that the U of I President had conducted sensitive University business through private e-mail accounts, and directed others to do so as well, in violation of the Records Act and FOIA. The newly discovered information suggested that the unhiring was a broader collaborative effort. I don’t know if the e-mails had any smoking guns, but the fact that they were illegally concealed meant that the e-mails would be interpreted in a negative light.
The President resigned with the private e-mail scandal broke (in order to retain a golden parachute), the trustees initially rejected the resignation, but reversed themselves when the President pointed out that some trustees had themselves used private e-mails. She got the $400,000 bonus when she resigned into a $300,000 per year salary as a professor.
(*) Obnoxious in tone, not content.
Note that my point is not that Salaita should not be able to recover. The issue I’m raising is from whom he should be able to recover. I think that the limits of the state’s responsibilities should be written laws and policies. If the trustees or whoever “unhired” him didn’t follow policy, they should be responsible. If they did follow policy, we should be able to discover why it was the policy.
What we have now is accountability at the state level without oversight.
Just more of the cesspool at U of I. I’m with Dave, where were the lawyers? Our offers to executives plainly state it’s only an offer until accepted and the contract signed.
And how dumb is that prof, resigning before signing, where presumably fraud, gross negligence and willful misconduct become the standard? Or was that the plan all along?
Guarneri — as I understand, the guy acted in good faith, accepting what seemed a firm offer from the University of Illinois. And UI decided to change their minds after the last moment, after he’d formally accepted their offer.
So the facts are on his side, and the law.