Hofstra’s “Word Salad” Investigation Tosses Academic Freedom

The phrase “word salad” originated as a diagnostic term used by European psychiatrists in the late 19th century to describe jumbled, incoherent speech patterns as Wortsalat in German and salade de mots in French.

It has since become a staple of American pop culture, a way to lampoon celebrities who speak gibberish. It has often been applied to former Vice President Kamala Harris, prompting no shortage of satire.

It is perhaps, then, no surprise that Santiago Slabodsky, director of Hofstra University’s Jewish Studies program, took it personally when political science professor Richard Himelfarb described Slabodsky’s presentation of two new courses as a rambling “word salad.”

Slabodsky filed a harassment complaint, alleging that the phrase discriminated against him on the basis of his “accent, native language, and Latino identity.” Rather than dismiss this attempt to convert ordinary academic criticism into discriminatory harassment, Hofstra opened an investigation.

Himelfarb then sought the assistance of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) to help him with his case. Slabodsky responded with a second complaint, accusing Himelfarb of “public retaliation” for defending himself in the media and turning to an outside organization for help.

Thus, Hofstra’s logic becomes circular: A professor faces investigation for criticizing a proposal, then faces another investigation for criticizing the investigation.

Slabodsky is no stranger to provocative academic discussion. His courses have included “Postcolonialism,” “Rabbinic and Subaltern Thinking,” and “Globalizing Religion(s): Genealogies of Evil.” Surely someone who teaches such challenging subjects understands that academic inquiry cannot flourish when criticism – even if it is a bit harsh – is recast as harassment.

Himelfarb reportedly agreed to apologize for causing offense. But an apology does not transform speech protected by academic freedom into punishable misconduct. Nor does a professor surrender the right to seek outside help simply because a university would prefer to conduct its proceedings behind closed doors.

The second complaint claims that Himelfarb’s public defense caused “reputational harm.” But as FIRE’s Graham Piro told The College Fix, investigating Himelfarb for defending himself sends a chilling message: “If you try to defend your rights, you risk further punishment.”

Universities should protect faculty members’ ability to debate curriculum, criticize proposals, and challenge their colleagues. Not every sharp remark is wise or courteous. But academic freedom would mean very little if it covered only criticism expressed in terms agreeable to its subject.
​
Hofstra should toss both complaints into the same bowl – and throw out these jumbled proceedings.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS