Calling Kamala Harris. Both Democrats and Republicans have often criticized the former Vice President for her propensity to create “word salad” responses to questions. Hofstra University Professor Richard Himelfarb is now under investigation for leveling the same criticism against a colleague’s remarks in a faculty meeting. After Himelfarb used the common term to criticize a colleague, Professor Santiago Slabodsky, chair of the Jewish studies program, he was hit with a formal complaint. Slabodsky has refused to drop his complaint even after Himelfarb apologized, saying that the comment discriminated against his accent, native language, and Latino identity in violation of Title VII.
In culinary terms, the question is now whether the complaint will be tossed or Himelfarb chopped over a simple “word salad” reference.
Slabodsky teaches on decolonization and has authored books such as Decolonial Judaism: Triumphal Failures of Barbaric Thinking. He proposed two new Jewish studies courses, including “Religion and Revolution” and “Conspiracy Theories. ”
According to The College Fix, the Slabodsky complaint alleged that a “small group argued that my two new courses ‘did not have enough Jewish content.’”
During the faculty discussion, Himelfarb made his “word salad” comment, and Sabodsky demanded formal punishment that Himelfarb says could cost him his position.
Even after Himelfarb agreed to apologize to his colleague after a meeting with the university, Slabodsky refused and demanded a formal punishment.
Himelfarb has alleged that his conservative leanings are the reason for the unrelenting campaign. We have previously seen conservatives pulled before university investigators for even the slightest alleged infractions.
So, now, Himelfarb will be adjudicated by Hofstra’s Harassment Review Board for using a common term of criticism.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sent a letter objecting to the investigation and noted that the charges were curiously brought seven months after the meeting despite requirements for “prompt” action on such complaints. It further argued that:
“Himelfarb’s “word salad” remark is nothing more than a subjectively offensive comment, which is protected by the First Amendment. Just because Slabodsky was hurt or felt disparaged by the “word salad” remark does not make it punishable harassment under federal law or Hofstra’s own policy.”
I agree. Indeed, I am unsure where the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is in this controversy. The AAUP has been a hair-triggered advocacy organization in opposing conservative policies, but often seems relatively passive in defending academic freedom for conservatives. I will be debating the AAUP President on such advocacy next week in Wyoming. (The debate will be streamed live).
What is disconcerting is that six of Himelfarb’s colleagues joined as witnesses in the complaint despite the obvious chilling effect on faculty sharing their views in meetings. After more than 30 years of teaching, I have heard far worse comments in sometimes heated discussions over courses and appointments. As a general rule, what is said in faculty meetings is meant to stay in faculty meetings.
Courts have tended to support such free exchanges in these meetings. One court noted that there is a cost that comes with the free exchange of views where professors “may have [] to withstand colleagues that do not like them, are rude, and may be generally disagreeable people.” Somoza v. Univ. of Denver, 513 F.3d 1206, 1218 (10th Cir. 2008); see also, e.g., Jones v. Kneller, 482 F. Supp. 204, 206 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)
In Tacka v. Georgetown University, Professor Philip Tacka accused the school of defamation in distributing an outside review during the tenure process accusing him of plagiarism (allegations later rejected). Relying on the common interest and qualified privilege cases, the court recognized the protections for faculty to speak freely (even if erroneously) “if the matter communicated is pertinent to the functioning of the educational institution.” It required a showing of malice to overcome the burden.
Other cases have reaffirmed this protection. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court emphasized that, not only do such comments or actions have to be shown to discriminate against a protected class but be “so severe, pervasive, and objectionably offensive that it can be said to deprive the victim[] of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.”
This matter should have been addressed informally and, most certainly, should have been put to rest with the apology by Professor Himelfarb. The refusal to end the investigation suggests that there is an agenda beyond simply addressing the alleged affront given in a meeting.
There is a dangerous subjectivity to these actions.
It is common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
We have chronicled actual physical attacks by faculty members who later were lionized by fellow professors and students.
Conversely, there is no margin for error for conservative or libertarian faculty. Postings on social media outside of school are generally protected from liability. However, that has not stopped schools from targeting conservatives who say inappropriate or controversial things on social media. Conservative North Carolina professor Dr. Mike Adams faced calls for termination for years with investigations and cancel campaigns. He repeatedly had to appear in court to defend his right to continue teaching. He was targeted again after an inflammatory tweet. He was done. Under pressure from the university, he agreed to resign in exchange for a settlement. Four years ago this month, Adams went home just days before his final day as a professor. He then committed suicide.
The few remaining conservatives in most departments often feel like administrators and others keep them under close scrutiny like a traffic cop riding their bumper to see if they go one mile over the speed limit. There is little expectation that any discretion or benefit of the doubt will be exercised in their favor as opposed to their more liberal colleagues.
Even if Himelfarb is not fired over a word salad comment, he will have been dragged through a long investigation. It serves to magnify the hostile environment that most conservative and libertarian faculty face today in higher education.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Slabodsky is Hispanic?
And a Jew. Both are. Wonders never cease.
Some of you here on Res Ipsa and Johnathan are due thanks for bringing hands on experience from academia. It is illuminating what goes into the quest for a good day of University. What l see is that outcomes are better when you live up to the word itself. Balance from diversity of academic viewpoint. Here, Hofstra is in the public spotlight. If l were a decision maker there, l would feel the weight of end stage optics. Do you want to be seen as real University? Or do you want to be seen as Judge Roy Bean and the Law West of the Pecos? “We’re going to give you s fair trial. Just before we hang you.” For the crime of “word salad”.
It is what it is and it will remain so.
Reminds me of Rodney King’s comment when he was beaten up by the police. . .”can’t we all get along?”
”can’t we all get along?” Short answer… no. Will never happen as long as humans exist.
Hate has no place here. Remember that signage? It dawned on me that the people who put out those signs are actually the intolerant ones, seemingly always liberals, who accuse you (3rd person) of being a hater, being ignorant and intolerant because you don’t subscribe to their ideology. So they hate you.
Slabodsky seems to have a pretty thin skin. I agree that word salad is about as mild a criticism one could give. “Unclear”, “imprecise”, of “confusing” might be better but the “word salad” is so mild as to be really unworthy of comment or even discussion. These are 2 children having a spat on the playground. Maybe they should be sent to their respective corners and left there for a few hours. I think there are more important discussions in the world to focus on.
I have had friends who were faculty members at various universities over the years and heard their tales about actions like this. Kind of hard to believe.
… pretty thin skin … ? I recall your responses to criticism on this blog, and they weren’t civil. Even went so far as to whine to the blog admin.. right?
People in your age bracket take themselves far too seriously.
True.
GEB,
Well said and I agree.
By Slabodsky’s response to “world salad” one would think Himelfarb had physically assaulted him.
Then again, someone said, “Words are violence!”
And this petty silliness is where we are today.
today… and every day thereafter.
Santiago lists his pronouns. That’s always a red flag. As far as I’ve seen, not a single person on planet Earth who publicly lists their pronouns has a pleasant, agreeable disposition. They all seem to be obnoxious left wing loons. I have found no exceptions.
Amen.
The pronoun garbage is a giant red flag and evidence of the word games of the left.
You OWN your name. You do not OWN the pronouns used to describe you – those you encounter Chose the pronouns they use – usually from context, and long before the current pronoun nonsense – people sometimes made mistakes, and often used “they/them” not just to refer to more than one person, but also to deal with situations were for whatever reason the sax of the person was either not clear or not known.
Al the left’s pronoun nonsense accomplishes is forcing people to learn names – even of those who are less than casual acquaintances – to avoid the nonsense that the left has imposed on us for the high crime of getting pronouns allegedly wrong.
YOU DO NOT OWN PRONOUNS – they are NOT like your name.
You have no more right to control what pronouns others use for you than you have to control whether they call you a nazi, or a nut job, or a left or right wing nut.
The only limited control you have over how others refer to you is in the impression you make on them.
Pronouns? You use your response as a cudgel against a simple clarification of a person’s being.
Why didn’t you state what his are? In fact, He/his/him. The same as yours. Right? Or are you it/it/it?
His photo is listed above his pronouns. Nobody is going to be confused and use female pronouns for a dude that looks like that.
He’s trying to get a colleague reprimanded for calling his schtick “word salad”. Do you think that makes him a pleasant enjoyable person to be around?
No. It further validates my experience and premise that 100% of the people who list their pronouns are unpleasant, disagreeable, left wing cranks.
Do you think that makes him a pleasant enjoyable person to be around?… Um… so based on that one action, he’s to be condemned for all eternity? Pretty human of you.
I always am interested in the ‘rest of the story’ and wonder about the family and friends of Dr. Mike Adams. His suicide/death is not the end for those who loved him.
What we have here is an example of the Double Down Syndrome, now rampant in the USA. It purports that when you make a statement or charge, you double down on it, regardless of it pertinence or stupidity. I agree with Turley. The complaint is against almost the mildest critique of another colleague you will find in a college. The apology should have ended it. Here is a brief review of the Double Down Syndrome I recently put on my own blog.
The Double-Down Syndrome
The “Double-Down Syndrome” describes a pattern in which leaders, organizations, and individuals become increasingly committed to a position precisely when evidence suggests they should reconsider it. Rather than revising a mistaken judgment, they reinforce it. They repeat the original claim, defend it more vigorously, and invest additional resources in proving they were right all along.
One explanation for this tendency is political survival. Public life rewards consistency far more than it rewards intellectual flexibility. Voters often say they want leaders who are willing to change their minds when presented with new evidence. Yet they frequently interpret such changes as weakness, indecision, opportunism, or dishonesty. As a result, politicians learn an important lesson early in their careers: changing course may be rational, but it can also be politically costly.
The experience of President George H. W. Bush is often cited as a prominent example. His famous campaign pledge, “Read my lips: no new taxes,” became politically damaging when budget realities led him to support a tax increase. Many observers concluded that the political backlash contributed significantly to his electoral defeat. Whether or not that interpretation fully explains the outcome, the lesson absorbed by subsequent politicians was unmistakable: breaking a highly visible promise can carry severe consequences.
The result is a culture of commitment rather than correction. Once a public figure stakes out a position, the safest strategy may appear to be endless repetition. The original statement becomes a fixed point around which all subsequent arguments must revolve. Contradictory evidence is dismissed, critics are attacked, and alternative viewpoints are portrayed as threats rather than opportunities for learning.
Psychologists have identified several mechanisms that contribute to this behavior. One is the commitment and consistency principle, explored by Robert Cialdini, which suggests that people feel pressure to remain consistent with their previous statements and actions. Another is cognitive dissonance, a concept associated with Leon Festinger. When individuals encounter information that contradicts a strongly held belief, they often experience psychological discomfort. Instead of changing the belief, they may reinterpret the evidence to preserve their existing position.
The phenomenon is not limited to politics. Corporations continue funding failed projects because executives do not want to admit mistakes. Military leaders sometimes persist with unsuccessful strategies because abandoning them would imply previous errors. Investors hold losing stocks because selling would require acknowledging poor judgment. In each case, the cost of admitting error appears greater than the cost of continuing it.
The danger of Double-Down Syndrome is that it transforms ordinary mistakes into systemic failures. An incorrect assumption is often manageable. A refusal to revisit the assumption can become catastrophic. Many of history’s largest organizational failures have involved decision-makers who had multiple opportunities to change course but instead became more deeply committed to a failing strategy.
Ironically, the syndrome often confuses consistency with integrity. True integrity is not merely repeating yesterday’s opinion. It is a commitment to truth, evidence, and sound judgment. A scientist who never changes a theory despite contrary evidence is not demonstrating integrity; he is abandoning the scientific method. Likewise, a political leader who refuses to revise a position regardless of changing circumstances may be displaying stubbornness rather than principle.
The healthiest societies and organizations create conditions in which changing one’s mind is viewed not as weakness but as evidence of learning. When leaders can say, “The facts have changed, and therefore my position has changed,” they demonstrate adaptability rather than indecision. The opposite environment rewards certainty over accuracy and loyalty over truth.
In this sense, Double-Down Syndrome may be understood as a modern pathology of public life: a condition in which the fear of appearing wrong becomes stronger than the desire to be right. Once that threshold is crossed, debate becomes performance, policy becomes theater, and repetition replaces reasoning. The ultimate victim is not any particular political party or leader, but the process of collective learning itself.
What we have here is another example of gdonaldallen’s Double Down Syndrome, now rampant on this blog.
apparently he wasn’t drawing enough attention on his own blog, so he had to piggy back on and hijack Turley’s blog to draw attention to his own.
There’s a term for that… bloodsucker.
gdonaldallen,
That was very interesting. Thank you for posting that.
Ah STUPIDITY at its finest and peak moments in Higher (or is that LOWER) Education! Bah haha. NITWIT SALAD is on the menu!!
They argue like a pack of whiny children. And they are called teachers?
Spot on, you’re part of the pack of whiney geriatrics here who whine all day long about others whining all day long.
Piss off. With the exception of you, it’s the parents and grandparents who care about, and pay for, childrens’ education commenting on the topic. It’s not some sort of lonely participation in an unimportant whine fest.
Yet…. YOU are here.
LOL
And yeah, here you are dustoff. A mentally defective gay geriatric.
Yet… YOU are here.
LOL
Double LOL!
And yet here you are the single, lonely, failure to launch, Gen Z, dependent on those you whine about.
How marvelous!
Just another form of censorship.
Censorship, how so?
Got a video for that?
Nobody is less tolerant and closer to 1930s Fascists than today’s left. They never cease to suppress freedom of expression they dislike.
This is true. And the #metoo movement is reminiscent of the Italian dilations, aka denunciations.
1930’s you say? What about the 2026’ers?
How do you know that Slobodsky is a fascist?
Sigh. Overgrown babies, the lot. Even the content of ‘progressive’ courses amount to a temper tantrum. These are not serious people.
And your comment is unserious, just the whining of an old man.
That’s just Jame’s daily temper tantrum. He’s the adult in the room.
@Anonymously
Sadly for you and your cohort, no, my cohort aren’t old. We will be around outvoting you for decades to come. Let us know when you have learned to tie your own shoes or use a stapler. Wish I were making that up.
Oh oh, more Jimmy tantrum!
Outvoting you? It’s James’ daily word salad. Wish I were making that up.
They are not serious intellectually but they are quite serious in making a weapon of any, even the slightest perception of transgression. Professor Slabodsky refused the apology intent on gaining a trophy as testament to his own superiority. This is yet another example of a torrent of cruelty, often cresting to violence that is running through our society sweeping aside civility and empathy in its wake.
“that is running through our society sweeping aside civility and empathy in its wake.”
Actually, it’s another example of that happening since the dawn of recorded history.
It’s the manifestation of two pseudo-cultures colliding. One of them demands blood. Usually the jewish hispanic.
ironic, 2 jews going at it and the world watches play out.