CHICAGO — An Illinois appellate panel tossed out a defamation lawsuit a DePaul University philosophy professor filed against his employer over allegations the school’s administration illegally retaliated against him in response to a controversial op-ed about Israel.
Jason Hill, a tenured professor, published an article in April 2019 on the right-wing website The Federalist called “The Moral Case For Israel Annexing The West Bank—And Beyond.”
In it, Hill argued that Israel should have annexed the land it seized following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War that began with an Israeli first strike, that a “strong argument can and ought to be made to strip Palestinians of their right to vote” and that United States owes “political and financial reparations” to Israel because of American’s support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Find out what's happening in Chicagowith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Hill said a policy of “radical containment or expulsion” of Palestinian people is the only viable option for the Israeli government.
“No moral or political distinctions must be made between Fatah, Hamas, and the people who elect and or support them,” Hill said, referring to the political movement founded by Yasir Arafat and the Islamist party that rules Gaza. “No constituted people responsible for the election and appointment of terrorist actors can or should be entrusted with the responsibility of voting.”
Find out what's happening in Chicagowith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The article prompted protests from professors and students at DePaul, who condemned the piece as promoting racism and ethnic cleansing.
In response to the backlash, DePaul’s Faculty Council passed a resolution condemning the content of Hill’s article while affirming his right to academic freedom.
The resolution, approved by a 21-10 vote, condemned the tone and content of Hill’s article, describing it as factually inaccurate and giving voice to anti-Arab racism.
“[The DePaul] Faculty Council urges Professor Hill to seriously reconsider his positions on these issues, to take cognizance of the perspectives of other scholars on these issues, as well as the real harm his words have caused to students and other members of our community, and to refrain from abusing his freedom as a scholar in writing on controversial issues in the future,” it said.
Ghanem, then the university’s acting provost, issued a statement to the full school community about Hill’s article. She said it “deeply saddened” her but she was also “extremely impressed” by the response to it.
A year after publishing the article, Hill filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court. He claimed that the resolution defamed him, that university officials broke their contract with him and interfered with professional opportunities.
Hill modified that complaint several times before a Cook County judge threw out three of the four counts it contained, leaving behind only an allegation of discrimination and harassment under the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Associate Judge James Snyder ruled that Hill is a public figure — he describes himself as a “public intellectual” and debates controversial topics as a DePaul professor — and that the statements in the resolution were essentially an opinion about his opinions. Legally, opinions cannot be defamatory.
Snyder found Hill’s claim that the resolution cost him unspecified, speculative professional opportunities by damaging his standing in the university community to be “incomprehensible.”
And since the professor never suffered any change in the terms or conditions of his employment, the judge ruled that he cannot pursue a claim of employment discrimination.
Click Here: cheap converse men low top shoes
Instead of pursuing the one remaining count that Snyder did not toss out, Hill withdrew it and filed an appeal.
On Sept. 18, a three-judge appellate panel unanimously ruled against him, finding that “no set of facts can be proven” that would lead to him being awarded any money from university officials.
“As acknowledged at oral argument, Professor Hill remains a tenured professor at DePaul. He was not fired. He was not suspended. He was not demoted or reassigned. And his pay was not reduced,” Justice Leroy Martin said in the 25-page opinion. “Professor Hill has pled no tangible loss, only amorphous speculation that his prospects are diminished.”
Even though Hill claims the resolution counts as a “censure” and DePaul denies it, the appellate panel found it did not matter, since censure alone does not count as a materially adverse employment action.
The court emphasized that the ruling was not taking a position on the merits of Hill’s article or the Faculty Council’s resolution.
While Hill’s initial article coincided with the formation of a right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, campus demonstrations over the Israel-Gaza War reached a zenith earlier this spring.
At DePaul, pro-Palestinian student protestors established a tent encampment, which remained at the university’s North Side campus for more than two weeks before Chicago police dismantled it.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.