The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Fired Prof. Maura Finkelstein: A Martyr for Academic Freedom?
The New York Times has a profile of fired Muhlenberg professor Maura Finkelstein that portrays her as a martyr for academic freedom.
Here is what David L. Bernstein and I wrote about her case in our forthcoming article:
Finkelstein claims that her dismissal was a response to her re-posting the following from another source:
Do not cower to Zionists. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable. Why should those genocide-loving fascists be treated any different than any other flat-out racist. Don't normalize Zionism. Don't normalize Zionists taking up space.
We are not in a position to judge whether Finkelstein's dismissal was solely or primarily the result of this posting. Regardless, if taken at face value, Finkelstein's claim raises the question of where to draw the line between faculty statements of political opinions that should be protected and faculty statements that give rise to reasonable inference that they are unwilling or unable to follow federal law and university rules prohibiting discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students.
FIRE argues that although "Finkelstein's speech may be offensive," her post is protected by Muhlenberg's promises of free speech and academic freedom. The authors, by contrast, believe that Finkelstein's speech at least raises the implication that she would not welcome "Zionists" "taking up space" in her classroom, and obviously faculty members are not permitted to exclude or even discriminate against Zionist students–even if you ignore the question of whether discrimination against Zionists constitutes discrimination against Jews under federal law.
At the very least, then, Finkelstein's rant provides ample justification for the university to inquire and investigate as to whether (a) Finkelstein was willing to affirm that her remarks do not apply to her obligations as a Muhlenberg professor; and (b) that she had not taken and did not intend to take exclusionary or discriminatory measures against "Zionist" students.
And that's taking Finkelstein's claim at face value, which I have reason to believe is very unlikely to be the whole story. But I would agree that this tweet alone, absent evidence that it reflected her actual behavior toward students, was not sufficient reason to fire a tenured professor.
UPDATE: This article by Northwestern lawprof Steven Lubet provides details about additional allegations against Finkelstein.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Curious – was that the entire contents of her repost or just a selection from a longer repost. You can see where I’m going – sometimes people don’t check the complete text of a link and only claim affinity with a subsection of contents.
“Im ba l’hargekha, hashkem l’hargo”
The reason I used the Hebrew (?) version and not the English one is that I could argue that I meant nothing other than what a few thousand years of Jewish theologians said that it meant, particularly as it was in a language that I don’t speak.
English is a language you don’t speak.
He apparently writes it well enough for you to think you understand it. Either he writes it better than you understand it, or you understand it poorer than he writes it.
+1
Watching Jewish friends trying to pronounce “Machias”, as in “UMaine Machias”, I’m kinda guessing I wouldn’t do well with those 5 words.
As an aside, it’s pronounced “Ma Chi As” in most of Maine.
The nearby city of Calais is pronounced “Cal Us.”
I heard people from Michigan pronounce the French-named city Gratiot as “Grass shit.”
Something’s wrong in the grammar of that first sentence. “… a profile of the firing of …”? “… a profile of FIRE professor …”?
And now fixed. Thanks.
Almost Fixed.
“martyr of for academic freedom”
Query: and how does the good professor (er, ex-professor) expect people to identify Zionists so that they can “Shame them” and “not make them feel comfortable?”
Maybe they should be forced to wear yellow stars, so the ex-professor and her crew can know whom to shame?
This sentence “The New York Times has a profile of fired Muhlenberg professor Maura Finkelstein that portrays her as a martyr of for academic freedom” is still broken because the relative pronoun “that” seems to modify Maura Finkelstein. Here is a corrected version of the sentence.
“The New York Times has a profile that portrays fired Muhlenberg professor Maura Finkelstein as a martyr of for academic freedom.”
I would assert that the original sentence suffers from a dangling modifier.
“martyr of for academic freedom”
Interesting because the sentence has two distinctly different meanings depending on which word is used — and I would have used neither if the intended meaning is what I think the author intended.
I hate these word crimes!
Bored — it’s a small college, under 2000 students, where they apparently are well known. The school’s also reportedly 20% Jewish so my guess is that this would be known.
Indeed, the yellow stars would make it more convenient for the haters
“Don’t normalize Zionism.
Don’t normalize Zionists taking up space.”
I’m taking strict construction of the English language here and presume that the American dialect of English is her first language because people always think (at least partially) in their first language.
The second sentence, in light of the first sentence, means “exterminate.” If this isn’t clear, add an “and”, making this into one sentence.
What she is essentially saying is “Do not tolerate the Jews, and do not permit the Jews to take up space.”
Like “useless eater”, “take up space” is an expression with a historical context and with a very clear meaning. Saying that someone should not be permitted to “take up space” is saying that the person should not be permitted to live.
“Normalize” does not mean “permit.” It means “treat as normal.”
It also means “standardize”, e.g. “Normal School.”
But your definition doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence, i.e. do not permit Jews to take up space.
Finkelstein needs to read up on the Nuremburg Laws — “Kill the Jews” means kill her as well — and if it ever comes to that, perish the thought, it *will* mean killing her as well.
If only these people had the same passion re: China and the Uighurs that they do for Palestine and Israel.
Why do you want the Chinese to kill all the Uighurs?
They haven’t???
I am a person filled with much curiosity. I wonder how long, or even if, we would be debating free speech if the words had been:
“Do not cower to Blacks. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable. Why should those criminal Blacks be treated any different than any wild animals. Don’t normalize tolerance of Black people. Don’t normalize Black people taking up space.”
Jewish blood is cheap.
That might be different because Zionism is a political ideology, which is different from race. The vast majority of Zionists are white Christians, and many Jews are not Zionists. Furthermore, political ideology is not a protected characteristic in the same way that race is. The more apt analogy would be something like “Do not cower to liberals. Shame them…. etc.”
Premarital sex is an political ideology and yet it is discrimination against women to make the distinctions that would have been made in the 1950s, i.e. out-of-wedlock births.
In this context, “Zionism” is much more a mere opinion, though one often strongly held–Israel should continue to exist–than an ideology. Most people, especially most college students, someone like Finkelstein would dismissed as “Zionists” have no particular “ideology” beyond that basic opinion.
Sure, you might be right about that, I’m not sure about that, but I’ll take your word. So in this case a “Zionist” might not be referred to as coherent political ideology, but instead, as you say, a belief that Israel ought to continue existing, and Finkelstein conceives of it that way as well; that doesn’t really change that “Zionist” here is not a protected characteristic like race. So the analogy of substituting “Black” for “Zionist” does not work.
I still think my analogy works quite well given what you said. What the fuck does “liberal” mean? You’ll get 10 different responses from 10 people.
On the other hand, if you were talking about integrationists in Mississippi in the mid to late 1960s, everywhere would understand that you’re primarily referring to Black people
I think you’re right, but if any statement against integrationists was equally applied to white integrationists, that wouldn’t pose a problem, except embedded in opposition to “integrationists” is the discriminatory practice of excluding people on the basis of race – that’s the problem with the integrationist analogy. That same problem doesn’t exist when talking about “Zionists” or “liberals” or *insert any political idea that does not inherently contain discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic*
I would go further.
Most “antiZionists” have no grasp at all of the roots of Zionism, or the circumstances of its origins. They have, effectively, no sensible alternative proposal.
Anyone who opposes the creation of a Jewish state has no concept of the situation of Jews in the early 20th Century, or of post-WWII refugees who somehow survived the Nazis. Western nations, including the US until Truman got pissed off, are absolutely those who created the need for a State of Israel. Their criticisms of Zionism are hollow and hypocritical.
Well, when you say your opponents can’t possibly be correct I don’t see how you can be wrong.
The people he is taking about are either vile scum or brainwashed by vile scum.
Ok.
Tell me what you think about the situations I mentioned, and what sensible, achievable, alternative approach you favor.
Zionism = BLM
I didn’t kill him because he was Black, I killed him because he believed in BLM philosophy.
Not a hate crime?
Zionism doesn’t exist.
Those who talk about Zionism are talking about Jews.
This is an anti-intellectual opinion.
Jews like Finkelstein?
Except that it is well known that attacking Zionism is for most such people a cover for attacking Jews.
A better analogy might be BLM. Zionism is at its core a “Jewish Lives Matter” movement and the majority of BLM supporters are white. Some professors have been disciplined for anti-BLM speech and activism.
Progressives generally have come out in favor of such discipline or even demanded harsher penalties. Conservatives, on the flip side, strongly felt that it was strictly discussion of political ideology, protected by the ideals of free speech and academic freedom. That’s the problem with analogies – everyone’s very principled when it’s hypothetical.
Some professors have been disciplined for anti-BLM speech and activism.
Have they?
The conservative free speech push has been a grift for decades now.
“Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So….deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones”
“Have they?”
Yes. This has been your installment of “Quick Answers to Lazy Contrarianism,” you lazy contrarian.
” on Oct. 12, [she wore] a kaffiyeh, a kaffiyeh-patterned face mask and a tank top that read “Anti-Zionist Vibes Only,” below which she had written “Free Gaza, free Palestine, stop the ongoing genocide by the Israeli and American war machines.” In another, on Oct. 26, she wrote, “ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS OCCUPATION.””
Is this appropriate attire for a professor?
Heck, is a tank top appropriate attire for a professor?
Any professor, male, female, or confused — other than possibly one teaching PE or Dance….
But the question I ask is if I were to teach my classes attired in Klan attire, might that be problematic? George Floyd overdosed but 20 years ago there was the gristly murder of a Black man dragged to death in Texas — if I’d worn Klan attire the day after that, might it have been even more problematic?
Why would anyone ask a janitor to teach classes? And why are you talking about attire for teaching classes? She wasn’t wearing the clothing in question in class.
And while I’m asking rhetorical questions: why is a janitor pretending to be a medical examiner?
Apparently she was so attired and teaching — and a student filed an OCR complaint.
And as to janitors, do you know what the union pay scale for a janitor with a doctorate is?
“Why would anyone ask a janitor to teach classes?” To assure at least some students will graduate with a bit of useful knowledge.
I agree with Professor Bernstein that the passage quoted shouldn’t by itself be enough to get rid of a tenured professor, but judging by the professor’s writings they are one “real piece of work.” Ugh.
https://www.maurafinkelstein.com/essays
University of Michigan is spending millions to buy inept private surveillance of students who supported pro-Gaza demonstrations. Some evidence collected by a private security firm which tailed students has been used in prosecutions:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/06/michigan-university-gaza-surveillance
IF every firing will be argued in a public court of people that don’t know the prof or the circumstances then the school admins win. look at the Bruce Gilley case.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/bruce-gilley-orwellian-campus-bias-tribunals/
Bruce Gilley’s Orwellian Campus Nightmare
So if this prof violated no rules getting to tenure then even if I would not personally like her,the school is probably at fault.
That is how the social psychology works, a bunch of admins say “you’re gone” and no one person takes responsibility, whoever wouldn’t go along with the rest gets treated like that prof.
I had a situation like that where I worked. Fr W , rather high up , said that I could definitely win a harassment charge against the Dean and the prof, but facts are: working with a faculty member you got in trouble, let alone the dean, I would be better off not there. Who doesn’t see this
Nonselective private liberal arts college with shrinking enrollment.
Alumni upset, donors upset.
What do you think happens next?
What I found amazing was that when the college wrote about either faculty or administrators in a campus-wide email, they felt it necessary to add “(Ph.D.)” after their names. I’ve never seen that before and have to wonder how many people there don’t have terminal degrees.
You’re assuming that the place isn’t on borrowed time…
Everyone knows that, to these people (antisemites), Zionist = Jew. Why don’t they just admit it?
There are plenty of Zionists who aren’t Jews.
And the committed antisemites hate Biden for being so Zionist and not standing up to Israel.
Do you not know the meaning of “ZOG”? Are you denying that “Zionist” is a hateful epithet among antisemites?
Indeed, taken at face value, Prof. Finkelstein’s comment would preclude the hiring or retention of “Zionist “ faculty. The remark is antithetical to the principle of academic freedom to which Finkelstein appeals.
[is this an Gyn Oncologist? How about getting back in touch?}
Professor Bernstein is correct in avoiding promotion of the ouster, because the same rationales could you be used to someday oust professors promoting Israeli settler ethnic cleansing and taking away the welcome mat in their classes for Muslims. An extreme example, but academic freedom goes both ways.
That being said, if I were a student, Zionist or not, I would take great care to avoid professor Finkelstein’s classes.
You have to be dead to be a martyr, so no, she’s not.
Surprised that there has been no mention of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, because according to it, Finkelstein’s hateful outpouring would qualify as an expression of antisemitism. If one accepts that it does, then why shouldn’t it be as solid a basis for her firing as would have been a hateful venting against AAs, LGBTQs, and other minorities? Is it about legally consequential distinctions between the standing of those groupings under Title VI and other laws, or is it really about their relative power on campus? How long could a faculty member who offended AAs, LGBTQs, and others hold out?
Did she teach any mandatory classes? Being a Jewish student assigned to take a mandatory course taught by her would have been dreadful. About as bad as being one of three male students (out of a total of 40 students) assigned to a 1L class in Constitutional Law by a radical lesbian feminist guest professor. Which I was. It was not surprising when the three lowest grades in the class went to the three men. That happened in 1982-83. I wonder what happened in the litigation against the law school.