Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

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 rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152
May 2, 2019

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:

This is the 23rd memo I have compiled during the past half-year (along with co-authored 2 op-ed essays)
regarding your decision not to discipline—in any meaningful fashion—the above-individual; at the request
of one of your colleagues, this memo will update concerns shared by those who feel you are employing
an anarchist who foments violence, who unabashedly scoffs at the Temple Administration as he
disseminates his message modeled after that of Farrakhan (whom he has failed to denounce). I’m told
the current view is that he is protected by speech-freedom reinforced by academic-freedom enjoyed by
a (prematurely) tenured endowed-seat holder. Our concern is that insufficient attention has been
directed at his activities that are separate from the speech he delivered at the U.N., to wit, the overall
Gestalt of what he conveys both to students and to the community (near and far). Everything herein has
been documented, drawn from prior memos; his books have not been scrutinized, and he has not been
confronted by these data. We hope that leaders of the Zionist Organization of America could meet with
you and/or others in the Temple leadership, recognizing that it is unlikely this could occur prior to the
upcoming Board meeting due to the cascade of graduations [https://www.jns.org/zoa-pushes-professors-
firing-from-cnn-temple-university-for-promoting-farrakhan/]; although the evidence is overwhelming,
the goal here is to excerpt the concerns that appear not to have been addressed by your condemnation
of the content of his speech. Extensive documentation has been generated by the ZOA that extends
beyond his dissemination of false information and warped opinions as to what he says is wrong with
American policy in the Middle East.

In March, quoting from Philadelphia Magazine, his pattern of moral turpitude was illustrated whenever
reference was made to the desire for black power to be manifest violently; without his advocacy being
taken out of context, he demonstrated the inappropriateness for an academic to advocate resistance to
“state violence that’s been waged against black female and male bodies forever” in Baltimore/Ferguson.
This is NOT an individual who should continue to represent Temple in any capacity in any venue, noting
that he was chosen by Dean Boardman to teach about Media, Communications, and Urban Life.

Just as he has been saying recently, he opposes anyone who would romanticize peace and [who would]
romanticize marching as the only way to function. In fact, he claims the claim that black lives matter
[entails the need to] assert our right to have rage and righteous rage and righteous indignation in the
face of state violence and extrajudicial killing. Recall that he played judge/jury/executioner when falsely
claiming the city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray, following detailed judicial analysis.

Indeed, he had to be corralled by lefties @ CNN, for Don Lemon respectfully disagreed with his view that
we can’t pathologize people who, after decades and centuries of police terrorism, have decided to
respond in this way and when we use the language of thugs, when we use the language of riots, we
make it seem as if it’s this pathological, dysfunctional, counter-productive [activity]. He was even more
extreme that an admitted Radical-Communist with whom he was interviewed, Anthony Kapel “Van” Jones
[https://www.conservapedia.com/Van_Jones]. As had been headlined, Baltimore’s lawlessness was not,
in his view, a “riot”; instead, it was one of a series of [justifiable] “uprisings” due to African-Americans
“dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries” due to “police terrorism.” That’s why he had
endorsed the need for “resistance to oppression and when resistance occurs, you can't circumscribe
resistance.” This far-left pundit cited the needs to [1]—”not get more upset about the destruction of
property than the destruction of black bodies” and [2]—“not romanticize peace...as the only way to
function.” After Jones challenged him, he only backtracked slightly and suggested that “we should be
more strategic in how we riot” (after having said minutes earlier that the word “riot” shouldn’t be used).
Dropping ambiguity, he said, “there shouldn’t be calm tonight. Black people are dying in the streets.”

A fourth article in Philadelphia Magazine emerged [March issue, page 20] in which [@ the very end]
appearing on talk-shows was OK since “The World is a F***ed-up place” [https://tinyurl.com/y58wj6fs].
This is NOT the type of language that should be used when educating students how to convey their ideas
with clarity and, indeed, it harkens to the racism/prejudice/anger he evinces whenever he’s on a podium.
His odium doesn’t belong at Temple, and no matter of “speaking the community lingo” justifies vulgarism.
During the past three months, after the Board condemned his anti-Israel/Jew-hatred rhetoric [that cannot
be justified by claiming others use it…“what-about-ism”], he has doubled-down and failed to heed what
was charitably adopted; That’s why these essays have been tag-lined as his having “mocked” the Trustees.
[This recalls his having led a cheer at one of his rallies that conveyed his attitude toward having been fired
after his U.N. speech: “F*** CNN.”] I aver consistently aver that the optimal remedy for unpleasant
speech is more speech, but this political/legal posture does not preclude acting against moral turpitude.
If for no other reason than to protect students’ minds from being poisoned, a remedy is indicated.

I am aware that it is probably useless to attend your upcoming Board meeting to register a complaint, for
the public is permitted neither to bring signs into the meeting-room nor even to speak during the meeting.
Yet, it does not appear that these letters (and the outcry from many other anguished individuals) yielded
even a retroactive study of [1]—his performance, and/or [2]—how he had been hired. Even as you now
face litigation from the former Dean of the Business School, you should be able to rise above feeling any
intimidation if you can buttress concerns in THIS matter by quoting utterances that he admittedly made.

The initial [12/6/2018] memo created an assessment-structure that was amplified by subsequent memos,
quoting the fundamental criteria to be invoked when assessing your faculty’s behavior 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.
To follow is the initial presentation of key-data with specific regard to the above key-criteria [pp. 3-8].

[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” [https://forward.com/opinion415084
/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” [https://www.yahoo.com /news/7-myths-palestine-
israel-conflict-174113642.html] which may be offset by “Ten Facts About the Arab-Israeli Conflict”
[http://arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/10-facts]. 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 [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hundreds-israel-beyond-protest-killin
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
[https://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-Arabs.html]. 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 [https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive

/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 [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/
%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 [https://www.thenation.com/article/how-israel-

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 [https://zoa.org/2018/11

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 [https://theshalomcenter.org/deeper-torah-israel-palestine]

nor the Jewish Voice for Peace [https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/jvp-rabbinical-council-
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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSO6lYh
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" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzSv28z97o, @ 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 [https://education.temple.edu/news/2018/07/college-education-welcomes-its-inaugural-
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 [https://mail.google.
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 [https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-myths-palestine-israel-
conflict-174113642.html]. In two puff-pieces, he was identified as an author, activist, scholar, intellectual
[http://monarchmagazine.com/a-moment-with-marc/] 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 [https://www.ebony.com/news/college-dropout-to-
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” [https://www.ebony.com/black-history/ali-black-
superman-cover-aug16/]. In none of these pieces did he include any academic representation disclaimer.

The rest of memo #1 discussed the profound level of Jew-hatred manifest in his utterances, prior to
recapitulating (rhetorically) the four-point analysis; also appended were an op-ed and a handout that
were prepared prior to the dual-protests that were to occur on-campus at the Bell-Tower (+/- MLH).
Summarizing all initial memos (2/7/2019) entailed providing hyperlinks to the original iterations:

The initial (12/6/2018) letter showed his anti-Jew, racist-anarchist rhetoric contravened the basic norms
[https://tinyurl.com/y6uer8u8, with Exhibit 3 [https://tinyurl.com/yb4ena7m].

The second (12/9/2018) letter expounded on the local/national implications of these profound concerns

The third (12/12/2018) letter annotated deficiencies in your Statement [https://tinyurl.com/y9vf7g2h].

The fourth (12/13/2018) letter [https://tinyurl.com/ybqvd8cs] equated anti-Zionism and anti-Jew.

The fifth (12/14/2018) letter noted that his defenders remain mute rather than attempt to rationalize his
claims that “New York City police who are killing Blacks are being trained by Israelis” (undocumented)
and “Israel Poisoned Palestinian Water” (undocumented) and “police and prisons should be abolished”
(anarchic and violation of American rule-of-law) [https://thegrio.com/2018/12/15/marc-lamont-hill-on-

The sixth (12/15/2018) letter documented his advocacy for anarchism [https://tinyurl.com/ybhlo5or];

The seventh (12/16/2018) letter revealed he is an incorrigible ideologue, unapologetically defining a

career attacking “Afro-Palestinian” oppression as a result of global colonialism born perhaps of his
adherence to Jew-hater Farrakhan [https://tinyurl.com/ydbyk4np].

The eighth (1/3/2019) summarized data accrued during the prior month, including two op-eds composed
by myself [https://tinyurl.com/ycxlubk3].

The ninth (1/15/2019) elucidated why “Temple Is Actually Protecting Professor Hill,” cited an essay by
Caroline Glick regarding the latest incarnations of gross anti-Israel rhetoric that prominently quoted Hill
(linked with intersectionality), noted how he (and others of his ilk) shouldn’t escape critique for being
supportive of Farrakhan, and cited extensive condemnatory observations by his students regarding his
blithe attention to his teaching responsibilities [https://tinyurl.com/y7ba65ga].

The tenth (1/29/2019) updated his MLK-Jr. themed speeches replete with Ebonics and vulgarity;
emphasized was a novel reinterpretation of activism, claiming it must come from an individual’s core if
it is to be more than transactional. This latter point represents a new twist on what he advocates, for it’s
no longer “I’ll support your cause (say, ‘women’s rights’ or ‘BLM’) if you support my cause (say, ‘no
borders’ or ‘BDS’); rather, people must now buy into the bases for each set of goals, no matter their
illogic, falsity or lack of linkage with any other potential agenda-item. Additional articles were cited,
both c/o Temple News and multiple authors who evaded focusing upon the gravamen of these letters, to
wit, his having violated his contract when inter alia fomenting violence [https://tinyurl.com/y8xebjwd].

The eleventh (1/30/2019) was comprised of four articles that explored the appropriateness of firing
professors for what they say/do under the aegis of speech-freedom; fomenting-violence is an absolute
justification for firing, whereas the alleged promulgation of racism is worthy of receiving scrutiny
(affording the individual a growth-opportunity) [https://tinyurl.com/ya963atu].

The twelfth (1/31/2019) was provided to illustrate the difference between documented enlightenment
regarding MLK-Jr. and the fanciful portrayal that MLH has disseminated as a "scholar" of whom Temple
University should feel proud? [https://tinyurl.com/yb2nkkf6].

In any case, this thirteenth (2/7/2019) memo debunked his ability to hide behind any tenure-claims
firing-you/], the second op-ed composed primarily by an attorney [https://tinyurl.com/yd4m6np4].

The fourteenth (2/11/2019) memo quoted from a speech in which he asserted, “Let’s engage and force
the university to engage….The time now is to take stuff. Of sort, yes reparations. What does reparations
mean? It means to repair the damage done. So how do we repair the damage done? We ask for
investment. We ask for representation and inclusion. And then they say no. And then we demand those
very things….[W]e have to resist….Make the university uncomfortable….They don’t love disruption….If
we don’t get it [what we want], shut it down….I don’t believe in nonviolence….I wouldn’t tell an
occupied people, for example, that they should just be peaceful….Revolutions are not
peaceful. Revolutions are not neat. Revolutions are messy and they do come at a price.” These cites
do not do “justice” to the total-transcript of his revolutionary rhetoric and rabble-rousing that had already
been collapsed-down from 15 pages to 4 pages [https://tinyurl.com/y2dmrpgo].

The fifteenth (2/12/2019) highlighted/annotated a just-published article from Temple News that probed
why “Controversy University: Temple faces unhappy donors in wake of a contentious year”
a-contentious-year/]. As had been accomplished previously, parallel events were cited to enhance what
might be viewed as “context”; here, the non-apology “apology” for Jew-hatred by Rep. Omar was cited.
Added was citing “the contrast between his appointment as a professor of communications/media and
noting how he has extolled “Palestinian Freedom-Fighters” and led a “F*** CNN” chant [@ 2 minute
FCA36F6B0E32E138F546FCA36F6B0E32E&FORM=VIRE] on 1/17/2019; this is not a guy who would best
be perceived by students as a role-model in the specific field in which he allegedly specializes (recalling,
also, that a pattern of unreliable classroom attendance was reported by his students @ two universities).”

The sixteenth (2/14/2019) cited my reaction to the editorial in the Temple News that, to its credit,
appeared without having been edited: “I am dismayed by both what is in this editorial—a broad-brush
attack on the Trustees’ work—and what isn’t: recognition that Marc Lamont Hill should be fired ASAP
because he is a vile anarchist who incessantly demonstrates moral turpitude (by consistently fomenting
violence) and violates his contract (by inter alia failing to disclaim explicitly that he is a Temple
spokesperson)….” [https://tinyurl.com/y2zomfqm]

The seventeenth (2/15/2019) discussed journalistic reactions to MLH [http://tinyurl.com/y2oxxgtq].

The eighteenth (3/1/2019) conveyed what he said “on 8/3/2016: he admitted to having [1]—used/sold
drugs, [2]—bootlegged illegally audios/videos, and [3]—fraudulently enrolled people on accidental-death
insurance plans {@ 2:10}.” He donned a Che Guevara shirt and advocated revolution {@ 15:00}.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDOB9uLGvME]. On 5/29/2011, while he was being interviewed
with Angela Davis (a colleague), he said guns were “symbolic” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-

Abolition of prison/police continued to be thematic [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQh7NfQTfQg

@ 1-hour mark x ~10 minutes]. And, lest we forget, he refused to condemn Farrakhan’s Jew-hatred
the-womens-movement/].” This was sent prior to your March meeting [http://tinyurl.com/y5cwbdvp].

The nineteenth (3/4/2019) conveyed the input of the Israeli American Council of Philadelphia, PA, the
appendix of which (inter alia) compiled eleven generic aberrations; amidst his deceit, he lionized criminals,
advocated “annihilation of the Jewish state,” and fomented violence [https://tinyurl.com/yygu38xn]:

4. In a USCPR conference Marc Hill advocated use of violence, spread false information
and accused the Jewish state of poisoning the Palestinian water—echoing blood libel
anti Semitism.

Marc Hill was a speaker at a conference of “US campaign for Palestinian rights” (USCPR) an
umbrella group leading BDS movement, which was held on September 28-30, 2018 in St Paul.
In an audio recording of Lamont Hill’s remarks there, he can be heard using his anti-Israel
propaganda and lies to advocate for violence. Hill said: “And how can you romanticize
nonviolence when you have a state that is at all moments waging war against you; against
your bodies; poisoning your water, limiting your access to water; locking up your children,
killing…” (See the links below). Hill further stated: "we have allowed this nonviolent thing to
become so normative that we're undermining our own ability to resist in real robust ways."

By urging Palestinians and their supporters to forget about peaceful means and to “resist in
real robust ways,” Marc Hill is now advocating for the use of terrorism he justified in the past,
namely, killing of innocent people by radical Muslim terrorists (see evidence of Hill support to
terrorism in # 5-11)

The twentieth (3/6/2019) quoted comments by the ZOA’s Mort Klein [http://tinyurl.com/yy7zoza3].

The twenty-first (3/11/2019) recapped a prior rant that inter alia justified Baltimore (and Ferguson)
violence: “The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray” [http://tinyurl.com/yy7zoza3].

The twenty-second (3/13/2019) provided additional context-analysis [http://tinyurl.com/yy7zoza3].


There has been considerable attention paid to the challenges facing government when confronted with…
…but, in this instance, Temple University is NOT “government” and therefore has discretion to ACT!