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.