Hofstra Professor Files Complaint Against Colleague for Calling His Comments “Word Salad” . . . Then Files Second Complaint When That Colleague Defends Himself

Recently, I wrote about the bizarre investigation of  Hofstra University Professor Richard Himelfarb, who had referred to a colleague’s comments in a faculty meeting as “word salad.” The investigation was launched after a formal complaint from his colleague, Professor Santiago Slabodsky, chair of the Jewish studies program. While some of us called for the “word salad” complaint to be tossed, Slabodsky has now filed another complaint stemming from Himelfarb’s public campaign to clear his name, according to a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

The original 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 Slabodsky demanded formal punishment that Himelfarb says could cost him his position.

Even after Himelfarb agreed to apologize after a meeting with the university, Slabodsky refused and demanded a formal punishment.

What began as a silly complaint has become far more serious due to the continued use of the university system to harass Himelfarb. It is a familiar pattern for conservatives who often face complaints and investigations over their viewpoints or teaching.

What is particularly concerning is that the second Slabodsky complaint appears linked to Himelfarb enlisting the help of FIRE, a renowned advocacy group for free speech and academic freedom. FIRE wrote the university:

“On June 30, Vice President for Human Resources Denise Cunningham notified Himelfarb that Professor Santiago Slabodsky had filed another complaint against Himelfarb accusing him of “public retaliation” because Himelfarb contacted an “external organization,” likely FIRE, that disseminated information about the case through several media outlets, “leading to the publication of articles that contain misleading information and half-truths.” The complaint accuses Himelfarb of trying to “intimidate” Slabodsky by generating public pressure on Slabodsky.”

Slabodsky accused Himelfarb of harassment, a highly damaging allegation for any academic. Himelfarb had every right and reason to vigorously defend himself from such a charge in public. To characterize such a defense as “intimidation” and “public retaliation” appears to do precisely what Slabodsky is claiming in the second complaint. FIRE is suggesting that this is a blatant effort to harass or intimidate a colleague. The use of the university system for such a purpose should not be tolerated.

Hofstra has an obligation to act to protect a professor who exercised his right to clear his own name and to enlist the support of an advocacy group. This second complaint should be dismissed with a clear statement that faculty, such as Professor Himelfarb, are entitled to defend their conduct when accused of academic misconduct publicly.

FIRE Second Letter to Hofstra University, July 30, 2026