You are on page 1of 19

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

 Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard 
Philadelphia, PA 19152
December 6, 2018

Michael B. Gebhardt, Esq.

Vice President and University Counsel at Temple University
300 Sullivan Hall
1330 W. Polett Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19122- 6086
(215) 204-6542 re: Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. [D.O.B. 12/17/1978]

Dear Mr. Gebhardt:

I advocate for prompt dismissal of the above-named professor and, thus, will provide a comprehensive
review of both the database and the key-rationale for this posture; I would be more than happy to meet
with you and/or anyone else in Temple Administration, and I would be able to bring people who are far
more knowledgeable than I to detail how profoundly incorrect and how demonstrably Jew-hating has
been Mr. Hill over the years, climaxing last week during his speech before an annual anti-Israel U.N. event.

The fundamental criteria to be invoked when assessing your faculty’s behavior are quoted herein directly
from the Faculty Handbook: “[T]hey should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint,
should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are
not speaking for the institution.” Here: [1]—The inaccuracies of his statements are extensive, [2]—he has
failed to demonstrate a modicum of restraint, [3]—he has projected disrespect for the opinion of others,
and [4]—he has made no effort on multiple occasions to ensure off-campus listeners recognize he has
spoken for himself rather than on behalf of Temple, even as he has characterized himself as a “scholar”
LSTbCmBaPnmaRK6YMCe4SZMbrzYjR_AcHl3uRw]. Each component {start on page 10} is actionable but,
viewed together, the evidence against him is damning; there is no room for “discretion” regarding either
the justifiable desire to maintain academic freedom or the trenchant need to honor freedom of speech.

As seems to be true with most Philadelphians, I have a familial link with Temple [my father graduated
under-grad in ’33 and earned his M.D. in ‘37] and I have a prior academic appointment [while I was on
the Medical Staff of the Albert Einstein Medical Center]. Other perceived-linkages could be detailed on
an ongoing professional/personal level but, ultimately, know I claim “standing” to provide this distillation
of my stance. Passion is to be channeled (during this Hanukkah Season) in the process of summarizing
why Temple’s reputation (reaching to your Japan campus, per personal information) has been besmirched
by overarching confirmation (regardless of whether tenure is factored-in) that he has fomented violence.

Because I anticipate dissemination of this communication, it contains both key-excerpts from myriad
documents and the complete texts thereof; this will facilitate review without worriment about pay-walls.
Deferred are multiple citations of opinions that have emerged nationally, despite the disturbing
observation that “bigots are emerging from the closet” with abandon; he has afforded legitimacy to the
claims both of “Zionist Power” (CNN-firing) and of Palestinian Arab suffering (false-diatribes).

There will always be a counter-argument conjured on a political/polemical plane to further the needs of
the perpetrator/protestor, so the goal here simply is to explain what must be done … come what may.
The implications as to how people may perceive “Temple” hangs in the balance for, citing a parody/spoof:
“I could have gone anywhere – but I chose Temple, a school that would allow a lying Jew-hater and
advocate for violence and the destruction of Israel to become [and to remain] a tenured full professor.”

It is first necessary to recognize what was generated by the Temple Administration:


To the Temple community,

Earlier this week, Temple University was thrust into the media spotlight after the remarks
of one of our faculty, Marc Lamont Hill, during the United Nations International Day of
Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

The story has been covered widely, including this story from Friday’s Philadelphia
Inquirer. As you can see, his comments sparked strong responses from those who were
offended by his language. I have spoken with some; I have heard their concerns; and
understand their reactions to the “river to sea” reference, a phrase many associate with
a perceived threat.

Let me be clear: Professor Hill does not represent Temple University, and his views are
his own. Further, Professor Hill’s right to express his opinion is protected by the
Constitution to the same extent as any other private citizen.

It is also vitally important to remember our values: Temple condemns in the strongest
possible terms all anti-Semitic, racist or incendiary language, hate speech, calls to
violence, and the disparagement of any person or persons based on religion, nationality,
race, gender, sexual orientation or identity. The university, in the best interest of its
community, will take necessary and proper action to protect these values when they are
threatened. At the same time, we pride ourselves on our diversity, in all its forms. We will
always be a place where divergent points of view will find a home. These are the values
the Temple community embraces.

Thank you for your commitment to Temple’s ideals, which have withstood the tests of
more than 130 years. And thank you for all you do to make Temple the welcoming
community it is.


Richard M. Englert, President

Executive Office of the President
1330 Polett Walk
Sullivan Hall, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19122

This is a slough-off communication, for ascribing justifiable angst to “language” constitutes an evasion
that is beneath the bare-minimum of what should be expected from an institution that perceives itself as
having entered the elite of America’s graduate and post-graduate Academy. Granted, it captured the
essence of the reactions of both “sides” that emerged instantaneously, but it focused on the coda of the
speech [“from the river to the sea”] rather than an unambiguous call-to-arms [which transcends rhetoric];
[the former has itself been dismissed inappropriately [vide infra], but the latter is beyond alarming.

Being a physician rather than an attorney, I can only distill the information in the public record for your
Board to weigh during its upcoming meeting, but know that the anticipated “process” should be initiated
ASAP even if its completion may consume a lengthy time-frame; you must protect your students from
being exposed to the dissemination of misinformation—wrapped around “intersectionality”-based goals
—from an individual who is in the Klein College of Media and Communications. Note that his empty
“apologia” constitute an echo of the “language”-phrase [vide supra] without addressing any content;
indeed, he focuses upon the “final comment” without confronting the prior violence-laden rhetoric:

I’m sorry my word choices caused harm | Opinion

Over the past week, I have been embroiled in a controversy regarding my speech at the
United Nations regarding the plight of Palestinian people. My remarks have sparked
heavy controversy, around the nation and right here in Philadelphia. Specifically, some
have argued that my remarks endorsed or reflected anti-Semitism. For this reason, I feel
morally compelled to respond.

First, I strongly believe that we must reject anti-Semitism in any form or fashion. This
means not only preventing physical violence against Jews, but also ugly anti-Semitic
images, stereotypes, conspiracy theories, and mythologies. As an activist and scholar, I
have done my best to point out these realities and challenge them whenever possible.
For example, in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, I not only decried it
as an ugly act of terrorism, but spoke about the broader rise of anti-Semitism in the
United States and around the globe. Throughout my career, I have done my best to
identify and uproot anti-Semitism in every political and social movement of which I have
been part. One simply cannot be committed to social justice and not be committed to
battling anti-Semitism.

It is precisely this commitment to social justice that prompted me to accept an invitation

to speak before the United Nations on the plight of Palestinians. During my speech, I
offered a deeply critical analysis of the State of Israel. Specifically, I challenged the Israeli
criminal justice system, settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the need to attend
to human rights abuses throughout the country and occupied territories. I also reiterated
the importance of global solidarity in order to produce justice. One simply cannot be
progressive if they ignore the plight of Palestinians.

Many have focused specifically on my final remark, which said that justice required a "free
Palestine, from the river to the sea." Critics of this phrase have suggested that I was calling
for violence against Jewish people. In all honesty, I was stunned, and saddened, that this
was the response.

My use of "river to the sea" was an invocation of a long history of political actors – liberal
and radical, Palestinian and Israeli – who have called for their particular vision of justice
in the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. For many, justice will come
from a two-state solution. For some, like me, justice will come through a single bi-national
democratic state that encompasses Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I strongly believe
that this is the best method to achieve peace, safety, security, and self-determination for
both Israelis and Palestinians. Justice requires that everyone, not just a single side, is free
and equal.

Throughout my speech, I spoke explicitly about the need for Israeli political reform,
specifically as it pertains to Arab citizens of Israel. I also called for a redrawing of borders
to the pre-1967 lines, as well as a greater attention to human rights for those living in the
West Bank and Gaza. At the time, I believed that these demands made in the speech
sufficiently reflected my belief in radical change within Israel, not a desire for its

Clearly, they did not.

I take seriously the voices of so many Jewish brothers and sisters, who have interpreted
my remarks as a call to or endorsement of violence. Rather than hearing a political
solution, many heard a dog-whistle that conjured a long and deep history of violence
against Jewish people. Although this was the furthest thing from my intent, those
particular words clearly caused confusion, anger, fear, and other forms of harm. For
that, I am deeply sorry.

As a communicator, I must take responsibility for the reception of my message. In this

case, the final words of my speech became a dangerous and harmful distraction from my
political analysis. Rather than talking about the plight of Palestinians, or engaging in tough
but necessary conversations about a positive and successful way forward for both parties,
the bulk of the conversation has been about my choice of words. To this extent, I did no
favors to Israelis or Palestinians. For this too, I am deeply sorry.

In the aftermath of this controversy, I remain steadfastly committed to love and solidarity
with oppressed people. I remain committed to critical dialogues throughout the city,
nation, and world in order to advance the cause of justice. And I remain open to learning,
growing, and struggling together toward freedom.

Marc Lamont Hill is a professor of media studies and urban education at Temple

• CNN drops Temple professor Marc Lamont Hill after comments on Israel
• U.N. speech by Temple prof draws fire from university’s board chair
• []
• From Tel Aviv, Marc Lamont Hill’s Palestine comments don’t sound so wrong to me | Opinion


In addition to the above opinion-piece from Tel Aviv defending him, a columnist composed a puff-piece
that claimed “Fired CNN commentator says remarks on Middle East are being misconstrued: “I've known
now-former CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill for years. I've interviewed him many times on a variety
of subjects from politics to hip hop, and I have always found him to be a scholarly, thoughtful person.”
being-misconstrued-jenice-armstrong/ar-BBQqDSo]. This columnist, Jenice Armstrong, previously wrote
that his uncle “inspires Germantown bookstore/coffee shop” [
404=true]. Know also he opined a month ago “Black folks suffer most without fair workweek protections”
helen-gym-marc-lamont-hill-20181030.html]. His activism is unabashedly liberal-progressive.

This is a complete on-point citation for the Board to weigh when determining his fate:

Temple Univ. Faculty Handbook

I. (c) College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and
officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should
be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the
community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should
remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their
utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate
restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort
to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

[Hill started his UN speech by speaking of himself as a "scholar," but he was NOT careful
to indicate that he was not speaking for the institution; his content was inaccurate and
disrespectful of others, as is also exemplified by his prior off-campus orations.]


The University shall have the right to dismiss any member of the faculty for adequate
cause. Cause, except as stated in Section VII (below), means incompetence, grave
misconduct, or neglect of duty. The following dismissal procedures will be used when
dismissal or suspension of any faculty member with tenure is being contemplated.

* Policies and procedures for dismissal for cause for faculty in schools and colleges covered
by the Temple/TAUP Agreement are included in that Agreement.

[Calling for violence constitutes the "grave misconduct" of moral turpitude; the process
follows the introductory standard lingo quoted above, detailed in the rest of section VI.]



The University shall have the right, upon such notice as may be reasonable, to dismiss any
member of the faculty under the two following circumstances.
1. During any period of emergency caused by financial exigencies; or
2. If such member’s services are no longer required by reason of changes in the
educational program of the University.
A member of the faculty so dismissed shall have the right to present his or her case to the
Personnel Committee of the Faculty Senate in accordance with the procedure outlined in
Section VI above.

Upon dismissal of any member of the faculty under the provisions of this section, the
University shall make a conscientious effort to use the services of such member in some
other department or capacity for which he or she has the necessary qualifications. If the
services of the member of the faculty so dismissed cannot be used in any other
department at the time of the dismissal, the University shall make a conscientious effort
to give the faculty member first consideration for any new position to be filled in the
future for which he or she may have the necessary qualifications at the rank held when

This was how I initially characterized the challenge to those wishing to help Temple excel:

Both in Philly and [inter-]nationally, the U.N. testimony of Marc Lamont Hill against Israel
has provoked praise emanating from the usual-suspects, cover-ups by key-individuals,
and condemnation by those whom we hold to be dear; activism is alive-and-well, but the
key-question is whether it will be converted into proper/concerted/focused action.

He advocated violence, explicitly eschewing the nonviolent approach of MLK-Jr./Gandhi,

to be expended on behalf of Palestinian Arabs; his 23-minute attack on Israel started with
condemning the Nakba [the purported “catastrophe” of Israel’s re-establishment as a
Jewish Nation-State] and ended with praise for efforts to displace her “from the [Jordan]
River to the [Mediterranean] Sea,” channeling the hate-filled rhetoric of terrorists.

It was punctuated by claims of Israeli human rights violations and the intent to link such
behavior with the “Resistance” that he has lionized, citing Ferguson [noting its having
spurred the BLM-movement]; “intersectionality” was manifest when he linked the groups
he alleges are downtrodden, the people-of-color in America and the Palestinian Arabs.

He has been lionized for having been fired by CNN, but he has been defended from being
discharged by Temple University, setting-up a conflict between the Board Chair and his
protectors, the [Jewish] dean of the Communications School and the University President.

Claims he is shielded from being fired due to his tenure are trumped by his having
committed moral-turpitude by advocating for violence against Israel and her supporters;
again illustrated is the link among those who are anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-Jew.

Hill establishes a tremendously potent national standard for other academic institutions
to allow faculties to convey openly/unabashedly Jew-hatred to students, devoid of facts;
furthermore, he evokes sympathy for having been fired due to Zionist pressure on CNN.

Inasmuch as this is a publicly-funded institution [under the State Board of Education],

it’s possible a remedy will need to be pursued in Harrisburg; he must not be permitted to
have student-contact, lest he poison innocent, young, impressionable minds.

THEREFORE, put the issue on to the Trustee-Agenda and invite his Dean to be present to
defend him...line by despicable line...and then posit whether he would FIND a way to FIRE
an employee who would utter any IDENTICAL diatribe against African-Americans ASAP.

A comparable reaction was evinced by Patrick J. O'Connor, Temple Board Chair, who called Hill's remarks
"lamentable" and "disgusting," conveying an anguish that is reportedly shared by many of his colleagues:
"I'm not happy. The board's not happy. The administration's not happy. People wanted to fire him right
away. We're going to look at what remedies we have." Indeed, he opined a private company would fire
him 'immediately' [, citing
news/breaking/marc-lamont-hill-temple-israel-anti-semitic-20181130.html].” Note this letter from one
of his colleagues, apparently remitted both to myself and to myriad additional members of the public:

Dear Robert,

Personally, I am in agreement with your reaction to the recent statements by Marc

Lamont Hill. Unfortunately, Prof. Hill is a tenured faculty member at Temple and as a
Trustee, I do not have any power to fire him. I sympathize and appreciate your response.


Marina Kats, Esquire

1 Bustleton Pike
Feasterville, PA 19053
215-396-9001 phone - 215-396-8388 fax -

He has advocated a "Revolutionary Struggle" against Israel [] and has

griped that the Iron Dome 'Takes Away Hamas's Military Leverage' over Israel, notwithstanding the fact
that this incomplete protection saves Jewish lives [
96GeuEas2xPM_ZxJE4CgHCk0vXiPm3FSmYQ1xLOr QppqpmdwmrVxJM]; this isn’t an isolated event.

Initial (conservative) reports lambasted him [

contributor-marc-lamont-hill-calls-for-destruction-of-israel-endorses-palestinian-violence/ and https:// and https://www.Re
they dutifully reported Temple’s failure to discharge him after CNN had fired him for “anti-Israel remarks”
anti-israel-remarks]. Although commentaries abound, no news-reporting has since emerged.

Initial (liberal) reports emphasized the fact that CNN was receiving backlash for firing him “after his
comments supporting Palestine” (ignoring his call for violence) [
lamont-hill-cnn-backlash-palestine-israel/] and one was so very biased that a reader posited: “Why did
you edit out Hill's endorsement of terrorism? He used a dog whistle, a euphemism, calling it 'resistance,'
but launching 500 rockets at Israeli civilians (as what happened just 2 weeks ago) is not 'resistance' but
terrorism. Sending suicide bombers into Israeli buses, trains, restaurants is not 'resistance' but terrorism.”
state-after-1235759]. Subsequently, the local Jewish Exponent conveyed a cursory narrative as an e-mail
before transmitting its print-edition and possible editorial [

An initial (self-characterized neutral) source report [“The Real News”] only quoted Cornel West who
defended “my dear brother Marc”; it focused on the “river to sea” quote instead of the call-for-violence
PKdNPZUGcFSV2pZ4R5HfNSdPqST4]. This unfortunate phenomenon has also been manifest locally, for
his “controversial speech in favor of Palestinian rights” was noted to have sparked a rally by national
activists in this column (composed locally about a local guy and disseminated broadly) [https://www

A rally in New York City in front of the CNN Building on 12/1/2018 protested the firing, organized by
entities such as the Palestinian Youth Movement and Existence is Resistance and Others. Nancy Mansour
was the "MC" of the event, and other speakers included Zachariah Barghouti, Alexi Shalom, Pam Africa,
Johanna Fernandez, Michael Letwin, Michela Martinazzi and Peter Flog [
ypGh2_hMsU]. For “completeness,” it is noted that David Duke has tweeted support for Hill

Note also that a (notorious for deceit) anti-Israel organization portrayed positively his “call for justice”
[] and thus ascribed his “tragic” CNN
firing inter alia to the triumph of Zionism in the USA [
The firing for his ‘river to sea’ declaration was portrayed as showing “crisis over end of two-state solution”
fc5ea05959-398525761&mc_cid=fc5ea05959&mc_eid=c14448fe78], coupled with an attack on CNN for
giving “a platform to Israeli gov’t spokespeople” [
eid=c14448fe78]. No wonder that a Palestinian Journalists Syndicate accused CNN of consenting to the
accuses-CNN-of-consenting-to-Zionist-lobby-573376], prompting the observation that his “genocidal”
ideology recalled “the members of the Japanese Red Army who carried out the Lod terror attack in 1972
[because] he embraces the intersectional view that the liberation of all people is being obstructed by the
existence of a Jewish state” [].

Overall, the “news” media behaved as anticipated, leaving a knowledge-gap this intro is intended to fill.
It’s felt to be advisable to portray this from an academic perspective, eschewing “left ↔ right” paradigms
that are unfortunately inescapable. Media-bias emerges in this situation, not dissimilar to other issues.

Counterpointing the dissemination of any truths was another Inquirer op-ed that concluded ominously
that any micro-aggression committed by Hill could, if inappropriately magnified, yield censorship
And another digression was rationalization defending Hill’s support for "A free 'Palestine' from the river
to the sea" by blogger David Straub (a UC Berkeley law professor) [
photo.php?fbid=10217037445103633&set=a.1848473766915&type=3&theater], echoing [https://www.] rhetoric emanating
from Hamas in more recent years [,7340,L-5257729,00.html] that
originated in 1964 c/o the P.L.O. [
call-annihilation-not-liberation/]. No one claimed Hill originated it, but everyone knows its sad import.

Straub’s Screed [excerpt]

Introduction (FIRING as justifiable legal recourse)

This overview section necessarily isolates and lionizes the quality-composition of well-referenced input
of the Zionist Organization of America, which previously had called for the firing of “Farrakhan-Loving
Israel-Bashing Marc Lamont Hill from CNN and Temple U” [
farrakhan-loving-israel-bashing-marc-lamont-hill-from-cnn-and-temple-u/]; this observation was sent to
the Temple Board (via myself) and, shortly thereafter, “CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill Condemn[ed] Louis
Farrakhan After Photo Together Surfaces” [
lamont-hill-condemns-louis-farrakhan-after-photo-together-surfaces/], even as Hill denies having issued
a condemnation [
lamont-hill/]. It was personally felt that he had perhaps recognized he had reached the operational limit
of his oratorical output but, after the U.N. speech promoting both violence against Jews and Israel’s
violent destruction, the ZOA called for his firing [
blatstein/] … then praised CNN for having fired him [
for-firing-antisemite-marc-hill-for-demanding-israels-violent-destruction/] … and finally issued an action-
alert targeting Temple so that it would, too [
write-to-cnn-temple-university-to-fire-marc-lamont-hill-for-calling-for-israels-destruction/]. Regarding
threats to Jewry and to Eretz Yisrael the ZOA’s chronic/subacute/acute advocacy again remains unique.

Hill’s U.N. speech during the “Special Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights
of the Palestinian People in observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”
provoked sustained applause []; following a glowing
introduction, his section starts @ 1:35 and ends at 1:58. It has been spliced to isolate Hill’s speech
[], and a transcript has been generated [http://www.].

[1]—Inaccuracies (factual > interpretive)

Amazingly, this speech prompted a contributor to a major Jewish-American left-leaning publication to

lambaste him: “Perhaps now that [he] will no longer be a CNN contributor, he’ll have some time to
educate himself about how the oldest hatred has been adapted over centuries to always cast the Jew—
and now the Jewish state—as an evil that can’t be tolerated” [
/marc-lamont-hills-jewish-problems-didnt-start-with-bashing-israel/]. What provoked this rebuke was
his dissemination of false/incomplete information, including perhaps his 5/17/2018 essay addressing
“Seven Myths About The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” [ /news/7-myths-palestine-
israel-conflict-174113642.html] which may be offset by “Ten Facts About the Arab-Israeli Conflict”
[]. Consider his claims and their inaccuracy:

…[When] the Trump administration move[d] the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, … Israeli soldiers kill[ed] over
50 … Palestinian protest[ers] in the West Bank and Gaza ….

Omitted [
gs_us_5afb6d48e4b0a59b4dfe7ff8] is the uncontested report that “The Israeli military
said Monday in a statement that some protesters ‘hurled firebombs and explosive devices
at the security fence and Israeli troops.’ Israel has also said that it was defending its border
against the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza and which the U.S. considers a
terrorist group, saying Hamas has attempted attacks during the protests.”

Arabs and Jews have not been fighting forever. Rather, it can be dated to the end of the 19th century or,
more acutely, the beginning of the post-World War I British Mandatory period.

Omitted from the “Mandatory” citation is reference therein to the Balfour Declaration,
which served as a foundation for the re-establishment of the State of Israel; more serious,
omitted from this rendition is reference to the ancient root of Isaac-Ishmael bitterness
[]. Theodore Herzl didn’t invent Zionism,
a core-value of Judaism for millennia (starting when Abraham bought Sarah’s burial-plot)
and an ongoing goal ensconced in liturgy, such as the Seder (“Next Year in Jerusalem”).

This is not about religion. It’s about land-theft, expulsion and ethnic-cleansing by foreign settlers to
indigenous land.

Omitted from this Al-Jazeera citation [

/2015/05/ethnic-cleansing-palestine-150514130231067.html] is the fact that the
population movements that occurred on both sides (noting the dearth of Jews currently
residing in Arab countries) was triggered by the Arabs’ declaration of war against the
nascent State of Israel following the U.N. partition-vote [
%201949. aspx]; myriad Jihadists/Islamists would not concur with the claim that Muslims
lack a religious motivation to expel Jews from Jerusalem. Also omitted is recognition that
Jews have resided in this Palestinian region continuously for three millennia
6929]; ultimately, reference to “foreign settlers” ascribes Israel’s rebirth to the Holocaust.

This is about the 70-year struggle of a people who have been expelled, murdered, robbed, imprisoned and

Omitted from this The Nation citation [

privatized-its-occupation-of-palestine/] are the word/word-roots cited supra [expelled,
murdered, robbed, imprisoned], recognizing that Palestinian Arabs cannot be “occupied”
in a land they never governed; indeed, There Is No Israeli ‘Occupation’- It’s Not Arab Land
and 98 Percent of Palestinian-Arabs Live Under Arab Rule [

Palestinians don’t keep rejecting fair deals.

Deftly omitted from this truncated history [1947 and 2008] is what occurred [or, rather,
what didn’t occur] at Camp David II in 2000; Arafat not only rejected an independent state
and failed to provide a counter-offer, but he subsequently launched the Intifada.

Palestinians want peace, but justice is always a precondition of peace; occupied people have a legal and
moral right to defend themselves, and to ask them not to resist is to ask them to die quietly.

Justice emerges from an agreement, for nothing should serve as a precondition when so
much controversy is well-recognized; essentially, resistance is endorsed as a tool to extort
unilateral concessions, absent any reciprocation offer/gambit/conceptualization.

Israel has no right to exist.

Of all the deceit refuted herein by invoking citations embedded in his essay, this is the
most revelatory; all the biased claims herein are derivative of this fundamental defect.

Being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist does not mean one is anti-Jew, for Jewish tradition is one that covets
justice and fairness, and its principles are in fundamental opposition with the Israeli government’s actions.

Neither The Shalom Center []

nor the Jewish Voice for Peace [
condemns-israeli-forces-killing-palestinian-protesters-in-gaza/] constitute mainstream
sources of Jewish thought; they are self-referential polities that selectively apply their
“commitments” to tradition, justice, and fairness; here, also, rejected is the responsibility
to pursue self-defense when invaded militarily, as has repeatedly occurred from Gaza.

Many of the above errors are interlaced within his U.N. speech, starting with decrying the existence of
Israel by disparaging partition yielding the “Nakba, the great catastrophe in May 1948 that resulted in
the expulsion, murder and, to-date, permanent dislocation of more than a million Palestinians.” Yet,
absent citations, other assertions (e.g., human rights, disproportionate force, right of free-movement,
UNRWA funding) cannot be verified; citing “the terms of Oslo” is particularly galling because, during the
‘90’s Arafat never began to implement its phase #1. {Discussion of the rest of the text is distributed infra.}

The “damages” caused by this non-“scholar” of Middle East history were perhaps manifest after
Hanukkah was celebrated by ~50 students on the Temple campus on 12/3/2018; the event was attended
inter alia by President Richard Englert, Provost JoAnne Epps, and Trustee Marina Kats [https://temple-
fAx09B-36w0_6fI5TZfSmJUG9xC8TYZ5zgL0zg4drwg] and the accompanying article about this Hill speech
included reference on a map to non-existent “Palestinian territories” (instead of “Judea/Samaria” or even
“West Bank”) and the false-claim (in a call-out) that “Jewish people first occupied the region in the early
1900s as a part of the Zionist movement, which supports Jews finding a permanent homeland.” Inasmuch
as this article also includes a time-line of Hill’s comments regarding the Middle East conflict, Hill’s input
arguably informed the author’s having made so many basic, egregious errors in its background-section

[2]—No Restraint (intersectionality > apologia)

Parsing Hill’s oeuvre yields the immutable conclusion that his Jew-hatred was pervasive [https://www.
amp/?fbclid=IwAR1d3T84zZJWlY9weXGhznujNWMQbk33LIX8No6zb7Pg3H9A_h7Zxs8fwcA]. Ethically,
“Hate in the name of ‘justice’ — even justice for a cause for which you may have sympathy — is still hate.”
Operationally, content of his U.N. presentation was summarized dramatically and unambiguously:

[He] made two despicable statements. First, he at length defended violent Palestinian
resistance against Israel. He condemned romanticizing or fetishizing peace, scorned the
politics of “respectability,” and compared Palestinian resistance to slave rebellions. He
added that while “we must promote non-violence at every opportunity,” he could not
“endorse narrow politics that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing
in ethnic cleansing.”

This is important context for his second statement, an explicit call for a “free Palestine
from the river to the sea.” In other words, he called for violence with an explicit anti-
Semitic goal — the physical destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

The context of what was uttered was then superimposed upon this definitive discussion:

Next, the context. Any person expert enough on the topic to be invited to address a U.N.
gathering (or vouched for so strongly by Peter Beinart) knows those words represent a
specific rallying cry for terrorist organizations like Hamas. They are the specific rallying cry
for those who want to end Israel as a Jewish state and wipe the only homeland for the
Jewish people from the face of the earth. They know the extraordinarily violent recent
history of those who’ve sought to make that rallying cry a reality, and they know the
horrific warfare that would result if that rallying cry was once again the national military
doctrine of Israel’s neighbors.

The implications of what was uttered was next superimposed upon this definitive discussion:

Further, they do not just know of the efforts to wipe out the Jewish state of Israel, they
also know of Palestinian efforts to render their own state judenrein even in the event of
a two-state solution. The contemporary understanding of the phrase “from the river to
the sea” is eliminationist.

The import of what was uttered was finally superimposed upon this definitive discussion:

But he did support killing Jewish people with his explicit endorsement of Palestinian
violence and his explicit disdain for so-called “respectability” politics. This is hardly the
first time he’s supported Palestinian terrorism. In 2014 he lamented Israel’s Iron
Dome missile-defense system because it took away Hamas’s “military leverage.” To be
clear, Hamas’s “military leverage” is terrorism, pure and simple. Hamas’s missiles are
aimed indiscriminately at Israel’s towns and cities. There’s not even a hint of an effort to
confine their targeting to Israel’s military alone.

The impact of what was uttered relates to the definition of moral turpitude:

Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to any conduct that is believed to be
contrary to the community standards of honesty, justice, or good moral values. While
there is no one exact definition of acts that are considered under moral turpitude, they
are typically described as any acts of vileness or depravity, or of sexual immorality,
whether in a private or social context. Legally, moral turpitude affects a wide range of
activities, some of which are unlawful, and some of which are not. In many areas, conduct
of moral turpitude may be used to determine the honesty or trustworthiness of a
candidate for office, an applicant for certain types of job, and witnesses at trial.

“Turpitude” constitutes a shameful, vile, or corrupt character or acts. Moral turpitude

refers to conduct that shocks the public conscience, or which does not fall within the
moral standards held by the community. The law concerning moral turpitude is
constantly changing and evolving, as the moral standards of society in general change.


He demonstrated no “restraint” when advocating for the violent physical destruction of the Jewish state
of Israel, awareness thereof by the public would certainly shock-the-conscience. By abandoning efforts
to promote the commonweal, he promotes his agenda to the exclusion of any other consideration.

[3]—No Respect (for the opinion of others)

Hill was asked to address the UN's annual anti-Israel hate-fest to take full advantage of both the
"intersectionality" phenomenon and to drive a wedge more deeply into American support for Israel — to
hasten her demise. Noting his record of Jew-loathing [
WlsY&fbclid=IwAR2mpCMGmg6-79-QVpxv04PGGi8G86_bmVpiLAVc5klmPt-KmTo_l8oGQnc], he was
warmly welcomed when conveying his view of the college campus as an essential battleground and when
praising Students for Justice in Palestine (@ 5:32) and charging Israel with having destroyed Palestinian
Arab culture (@ 3:04:00-3:06:00).

Perhaps the most revelatory moment in his speech was when he interrupted it to state, "Forgive my thirst;
I literally just off of a flight from Palestine to come to address you this morning and I was boycotting the
Israeli water, so I was unable to quench my thirst, but thank you for your indulgence. Or for indulging me
rather" [, @ 7:30]. The levels of ignorance and irony
that can be unpacked when assessing this elitist aside would include Israel’s decades-old leadership in
achieving desalination; the bottom-line, here, is that he exudes core-hatred for all-things-Israeli.

This is not an inconsequential concern, noting the contents of one of the books he employs in his classes:
Promises Not Kept: Poverty and the Betrayal of Third World Development, By John Isbister, 7th edition
lopment_7th_edition]; one wonders if he has included any treatise counterbalancing these contents:

Five Lives.
The Third World.
The Extent of World Poverty.
The Successes.
Different Areas of the Third World Diverge.
The Betrayal of Responsibility.
Modernization Theory.
Dependency Theory.
Limitations of These Approaches.
Why Does Poverty Persist?
The Theories as Worldviews.

The Creation of the European Empires.
The Causes of Imperialism.
The Culture of Imperialism.
The Foundations of Third World Poverty.
The Population Explosion.
The Legacy of Imperialism.
The Origins of Third World Nationalism.
The Indian Subcontinent.
Muslim and Jewish Nationalism.
Islamic Fundamentalism.
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Latin America.
The Nationalist Identity.
The Legacy of Nationalism.
What Is Economic Development?
Population Control.
False Paths to Economic Development.
Development in the 1980s: Waylaid by the Debt Crisis.
Into a New Century: Rediscovering the Market and Exports.
The End of the Cold War.
Foreign Policy During the Cold War: Globalism.
The New American Hegemony.
The War on Terrorism.
The Illusion of the North-South Dialogue.
A Constructive Foreign Policy.
Military Spending and Policy.
Human-Rights Policy.
Foreign Economic Policy.
Can the Rich Cooperate with the Poor?
A Hope for Partnership.

Illustrating his academic “reach” is his leadership role in a program that invites 15 high-achieving students
from Philadelphia public high schools to spend their senior year completing five courses within the College
of Education [
cohort-temple-education-scholars]. And he was ranked #55 in terms of the ability to influence the public
on the Internet; he posted the top Klout scores for the second year in a row [
com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzLrQQgXKBmTqHrBZXGVgJXNWR?projector=1 and https://webcache.
goldrick-rab-ranked-7th-most-publicly-influential-education-scholar+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk &gl=us].

While reporting on Hill, Pamela Geller recalled a visit (with her colleagues) to Temple years ago—which I
attended—when she appeared under heavy security and, nevertheless, was shouted down. She claimed
pro-Jewish voices were banned, uninvited from speaking after leftists and Muslims protested; she was
not surprised that he would remain at Temple, even after having made remarks that were too extreme
even for the far-left propagandists who run CNN. In her view, Temple and other American universities are
bastions of leftist indoctrination and Jew-hatred and, thus, do not merit receipt of public funding [https://
BgMyW0HMFdDHvCvi2bmekJy4waQEEk]. These observations are best viewed as illustrative of the
profundity of the challenge facing Temple, for the implications of his being validated are legion.

[4]—No Disclaimer (speaking for himself > standing for Temple)

In his U.N. speech, he initially identified himself “As a scholar, as an activist, and as a citizen”
ntation.pdf]. In his essay (“Seven Myths About the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”), he identified himself as
“the Steve Charles Professor of Media, Cities, and Solutions at Temple University, a CNN political
commentator and former host of HuffPost Live [
conflict-174113642.html]. In two puff-pieces, he was identified as an author, activist, scholar, intellectual
[] and as a College Dropout who became a Ph.D.
(“The Bold & Beautiful Marc Lamont Hill”) during which he claimed Fox News fired him because of his
support for Mumia Abu Jamal and Assata Shakur [
phd-the-bold-beautiful-marc-lamont-hill/]. In a piece about Muhammad Ali (“my Black Superman”)
during which he discussed his conversion to Islam, he identified himself as “a distinguished professor of
African American Studies at Morehouse College” [
superman-cover-aug16/]. In none of these pieces did he include any academic representation disclaimer.


His apology for language-choice is unprecedented and uncanny, emerging from the first Steve Charles
Chair in Media, Cities and Solutions [
temple%E2%80%99s-klein-college-media-and-communication], particularly because he failed to rescind
his incendiary remarks in the process. In an Open Letter to CNN condemning his firing for having criticized
Israel, it was claimed that, "During his speech, Hill criticized Israel's state violence and its ethnic cleansing
of Palestinians. Hill pointed out that ‘the Israeli state continues to restrict freedom and undermine the
equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as those in the West Bank and Gaza’….We cannot pretend
that painting Hill as a threat that Temple University must remove is fueled by anything other than racism.
Policing black voices in academia and in public spaces is part of a much larger history of anti-Blackness.”
IwAR1q0LF0tUFdJCzjlALPJ_eI2TjxqfL37au9eqREbSRCkf7I94xnEo6qLAI]. To the contrary, the population of
so-called "Palestinians" has quintupled since Israel was re-established, and it’s difficult to diagnose
"Ethnic Cleansing" when the Arab party had the third-highest vote total in the last Israeli election and
when there are 14 Arab Knesset members, plus in the judiciary, diplomatic corps, medicine and military.

By equating Israel with slavery, the Jim Crow South and Ferguson, MO, Hill made the issue about race,
although his effort to link the plight of the Palestinian Arabs with the status of African-Americans failed
inter alia because American blacks never tried to destroy America. Thus, the alarum must be sounded on
an ethical plane during this Holiday Season when modern-day Maccabees (Jews) are under assault.

Make no mistake about it, media-dissemination of Jew-Hatred has been unleashed during the past week;
for example, under the pretense of composing an essay “Exposing the Israel Lobby Groups Behind the
‘Political Lynching’ of Marc Lamont Hill” [
behind-the-political-lynching-of-marc-lamont-hill/252534/], depicted in-color in an editorial-cartoon is a
Magen David prominently appearing on the sleeve of one of the two arms attempting to gag Hill. Also,
left-leaning media are citing this event as a warning against the excesses of “intersectionality” pursuits,
noting that “What the Women’s March Can Learn from Marc Lamont Hill” is to avoid alienating verbiage
otherwise, it remains just-fine to collaborate, notwithstanding whether others disseminate deceit.

Commentators calling for Hill’s dismissal heap “shame” upon Temple without addressing the key criteria
that would justify action []; curiously,
ratings of his academic performance []
from a decade ago reflect his self-confident elitism rather than his scholarship; comments convey the
“lack of restraint” and “intolerance for contrary views,” generating a consensus that he was “average.”
Compare/contrast these attacks with the conclusions drawn by an individual who depicted his reaction
to hearing Hill speak at the U.N.; when he described violence as a right of the Palestinian Arabs, he “[F]elt
that he was justifying my murder and that of everyone I know in Israel, from babies learning to crawl to
my grandmother's best friends [

And his vile aside that Israeli-Jews poison the drinking-water of Palestinian Arabs recalls references to
blood-libel as a manifestation of Jew-hatred dating back to the Middle Ages (when Jews were accused of
starting Black Death by poisoning wells); this root-cause of his having referenced water-libel is revelatory
for it is linked to two prior events. First, the P.L.O. characterized as “an order to kill” a false announcement
that “a religious decree by a prominent Jewish rabbi allowed Israeli settlers in the West Bank to poison
Palestinian water sources in Palestinian towns in the occupied West Bank” [
/2016/06/20/latest-blood-libel-sunday-the-rabbi-decreed-poison-the-palestinians-water/]. Second, in an
address to the EU Parliament by P.A. (perpetual?) President Mahmoud Abbas repeated this calumny
blood-libel-in-speech-to-eu-parliament/]. His anti-Jewish attitudes are deeply-ingrained and tethered to
BLM-based ideology, as detailed in this analysis [

Recalling his progressive, pro-BLM activist-postures, it would have been desirable had he provided an
alternative paradigm to his textbook, such as one that addresses “Black Lives Matter” sociologically
_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1536873760&pushcrew_powered=1]; inversely,
he has advocated, in a podcast uploaded this week—the abolition of prisons and police—in conjunction
with BLM [
7JjFJvZBEootsLLays7L9O3bObimTyifoN0bxZHvcEQKwVlz3G5Kr0 @ 1:06]. Imbalance is glaring; it doesn’t
seem he has “grown” as a commentator/educator during this decade, recalling that Fox News Fired Hill
in 2010 [].

The ZOA‘s Mort Klein wrote in the Phila. Inquirer that Hill should be fired due to his having promulgated
a litany of intentional “language” aberrations that overlaps substantially with those detailed supra
d03c5e]. More time to search the Internet would undoubtedly yield even more outrageous quotes.

Perhaps anticipating today’s rallies, Stephen A. Cozen defended Board Chair (and law-partner) O’Connor
for having been unfairly criticized over his remarks regarding Hill and heaped "Shame” on the Temple
Association of University Professors [“TAUP”] for supporting Hill’s “[R]emarkably hateful statements and
for unfairly criticizing someone who has dedicated a substantial part of his professional life to the
betterment of Temple University" [

Today were published two articles-of-interest in The Jewish Exponent; first was an elaborative version of
the previously-referenced news-article [http://jewish
marc-lamont-hill-following-israel-comments-remains-employed-at-temple/] and second was an editorial
that advised he be investigated, absent a critical factual review, as is so typical of evasive-progressives

THEREFORE, to recapitulate, he has repeatedly violated all four of the fundamental criteria to be invoked
when assessing faculty behavior [per the Faculty Handbook]: “[T]hey should at all times be accurate,
should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make
every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.” To wit (citing just a few examples),
[1]—His inaccuracies are legion and profound, [2]—His having advocated replacing Israel “from the river
to the sea” (particularly when uttered at Nazareth, which is in Israel-proper) exceeds those of Arab leaders
proposing a two-state solution, [3]—His failure to integrate any view that could be construed as contrary
appears to have permeated his activities in academe, and [4]—His repeated failure to articulate a clear
disclaimer regarding his personal views (even in the high-profile setting of the U.N.) has been countered
by his having declared himself to be a “scholar” (and, lacking any other academic affiliation, is thereby
appending this self-description to his occupying the Charles Chair). Finally, his faux-apology for hurtful
word-choice is risible, for it undermines both his being a justified occupant of a media-related position
and his being a justified occupant of an education-related position; in a high-visibility setting, he revealed
admittedly-poor word-choice and conveyed bulk-information (as in the past) that is devoid of veracity.

In my view, Temple must supplant charging Hill with run-of-the-mill "hate speech" (an accurate view) with
what actually and reprehensibly emerged via the U.N., namely, overt legitimation of "resistance"-style
violence drawing upon the BLM thugs who foment anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Western behaviors.
To defuse high-emotions and to problem-solve, some people feel it’s highly desirable to de-emphasize
the obvious political nature of these phenomena. All of this aside, however, it is the highest priority to
expunge a destructive, ignorant force who runs rampant within Temple.

Perhaps the most succinct summary of the salient features of what has occurred—and its import—was
generated promptly after the news broke last week regarding what transpired: “CNN fires Marc Lamont
Hill after he calls for ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ ” []. It ended
with prescience that has already been validated (noting, for example, social-media postings):

I expect further escalation of attacks on Jews and Israel, as Hill will be lionized as a victim
and Jews will be demonized with the familiar tropes of puppet masters pulling strings.
The rising tide of Jew-hatred is obvious to anyone not wearing blinders.

Hill is disseminating false information without the demonstrated ability to restrain himself and/or to
explore ideas with which he personally disagrees; this plus his having blurred the line between speaking
for the personal philosophy he cherishes and disclaiming any effort to represent Temple, such unbridled
behavior merits dismissal ASAP, for he otherwise will have an expanded capacity to pollute young minds.

Today’s pro-Hill rally at Temple “From the River to the Sea: Philly Stands with Marc Lamont Hill” will sport
an array of supportive groups that, themselves, illustrate his radicalism … in addition to David Duke
Workers World Party, Party for Socialism & Liberation, Philly BDS, Black Alliance for Peace, Jewish Voices
For Peace, and Mobilization for Mumia [].

Finally, this would be incomplete were it not to capture points made in an article published overnight
(co-authored by myself) which notes the four criteria that disqualify using speech-freedom protections:
“The legal exceptions to the right of free speech that accurately apply are fighting-words, true-threat,
defamation (libel & slander), and incitement to imminent lawless action. Hill's words, dramatically
presented at a ‘Free Palestine Day,’ clearly exemplified all of these exceptions.” The reader is invited to
review comments (and replies thereto) that illustrate how the article-critics ignored this specific point;
note also discussion of the national implications of what is occurring locally, inasmuch as “Temple U hides
behind Constitution to defend anti-Semitic Marc Lamont Hill” [


Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.