Letter to the Editor: DePaul students respond to Jason Hill suing university
Students protest Professor Jason Hill in May 2019 in response to his controversial statements on Palestine.
Editor’s Note: This submission does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the DePaulia staff.
As of April 20th, 2020, philosophy professor Jason D. Hill filed a lawsuit against DePaul University on multiple counts. We began this coalition last April of 2019 in order to expose Professor Hill’s racist, bigoted, homophobic and xenophobic rhetoric. His reckless and violent speech threatens the safety of minority groups at DePaul and creates a hostile environment.
The coalition successfully gathered campus-wide and national support in condemning Professor Hill’s hateful rhetoric and reaffirming the Vincentian mission DePaul upholds. However, since April 2019, Hill has continued to incite violence in numerous articles and has justified it under the guise of “free speech.”
Professor Hill’s lack of respect for students at DePaul continues in the form of this new lawsuit. As students grapple with financial instability and Chartwells workers are going unpaid, Professor Hill has chosen to exploit the university and its resources by demanding a cash settlement. This lawsuit only takes away funds that DePaul could use to pay faculty and staff and provide emergency relief for students. The decision to act on a lawsuit is selfish and irresponsible.
We would like to reaffirm our commitment to standing against hate and racism on campus, and reassert our previous demands of racial sensitivity training for faculty and accessible resources for students to report discrimination in the classroom. We stand in solidarity with all students, staff, and faculty working at this difficult and vulnerable time, and demand that DePaul prioritize workers and students most impacted by the shutdown, not payouts to frivolous lawsuits. We hope that Professor Hill and the administration share these priorities.
Joe Moran, sr. (DePaul MBA 1959) • May 19, 2020 at 12:09 pm
The editorial by the ‘DePaul Left Alliance’ raises a philosophical question “What’s it all about?” (a DePaul education, that is). The ‘Alliance’ presents an astounding litany of direct accusations against Professor Hill, e.g., “racist,” “homophobic”, “xenophobic”, “violent speech”, “threatens safety”, “hostile environment”, “incite violence”, “hateful”, “violent speech”, and on and on – and on.
There is a remarkable paucity of information given to us, the reader, that we might judge what, ‘specifically’ Prof. Hill said or did that would elicit such umbrage. Who, for example, rioted and were the police called to arrest someone?
The ‘Left Alliance’, no names given,, also is chagrined that Prof. Hill has the temerity to file a lawsuit against the university, saying “Professor Hill has chosen to exploit the university and its resources by demanding a cash settlement. This lawsuit only takes away funds that DePaul could use to pay faculty and staff and provide emergency relief for students. The decision to act on a lawsuit is selfish and irresponsible.”
But, in the same DePaulia issue, some DePaul students filed a class-action lawsuit against DePaul U. for tuition refunds because of the virus shutdown? Is that also “selfish and irresponsible”? By the bye, shouldn’t we be glad there is a mechanism for both cases to be taken to a dispassionate court, to hear evidence before concluding anything?
A challenge to “Left Alliance” – don’t you agree? If not, pray tell, why not? As part of the DePaul Community, we need more than your “J’accuse” to be convinced by your feelings being offended, based simply on slogans, signs, placards, shouted conclusions, veiled threats, etc. Where is your argument? Thrill us with your logic and presentation: You won’t get our vote with rantings, slogans, and name-calling. DePaul is a place of learning, for God’s sake, not a forum for winning minds by simply shouting conclusions.
A university education, in order to truly LEARN (its only raison d’être for existence), must be done in an atmosphere of intellectual discomfort and thinking, not rote acquiescence to a ‘cause’ shouted by your compatriots. So, current denizens of DePaul: if you feel you have a point, check out all the data, including historical context; then build your case based on all of that, create the rational argument, consider ALL the evidence, and then, present your conclusions, – if you wish to convince those outside of your band of advocates (who need no convincing, anyway).
Finally, to all present denizens of my alma mater, DePaul.
A truism: Everyone has a right to feel offended; no one has a right not to feel offended.