Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

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  http://www.doctor-bob.biz/rsklaroff
May 3, 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.

Dear Mr. Gebhardt:

In yesterday’s memo, it was demonstrated that your employee has fomented violence; this was both
advocated directly when advocating resistance and praising those who have been violent, and indirectly
when simultaneously rejecting the nonviolence of MLK, Jr. and Gandhi while calling for the use of force.
These are not merely rhetorical devices to punctuate speech-/academic-freedom to redress grievances;
rather, in conjunction with promoting anarchy (prison/police “abolition”) and supporting Farrakhan,
unambiguous messaging emanates from Temple TO THE WORLD that the government’s destruction of
downtrodden male/female Black/Muslim bodies must be avenged. No matter that he corrupts reality
[e.g., depicting a fictious “African” Quarter of Jerusalem], for any factoid suffices when stirring the rabble.

Although it is intuitive that encouraging altering a government that controls the land “from the [Jordan]
river to the [Mediterranean] Sea” is akin to supporting a “forced” destruction of the Jewish State, it should
be noted that this component of his political philosophy was not emphasized in the prior memo;
obviously, he supports violence if it’s necessary to overthrow Jerusalem’s manifestation of Zionism.
Nevertheless, his Jew-hatred is a component of the views he espouses, mirroring his idol, Farrakhan.

Meanwhile, he mocks Temple and everything for which you stand, in any available/crass way and venue;
recall his non-apology apology for “words” but NOT content…invoking context but NOT content.

Op-ed essays that elaborate on these themes were composed by Steve Feldman, the ZOA’s Executive
Director in Philly [http://jewishexponent.com/2019/01/11/temple-is-actually-protecting-professor-hill/]
entitled “Temple Is Actually Protecting Professor Hill” and by Mort Klein, the ZOA’s National President
to-antisemitism/] advocating (as had also been averred prior to the infamous UN event, due to obeisance
to Farrakhan) “Firing of Temple Prof. Hill Due to Antisemitism.”

Cowritten with Attorney Lynne Lechter were my two op-eds that explore the implications of this problem
tisemitic_marc_lamont_hill.html] entitled “Temple U hides behind Constitution to defend anti-Semitic
Marc Lamont Hill” and why he can’t simply invoke speech-/academic-freedom [https://www.jns.org
/opinion/memo-to-anarchist-hill-tenure-does-not-prevent-temple-university-from-firing-you/] entitled
“Memo to Anarchist Hill: Tenure Does NOT Prevent Temple University from Firing You.”

This is actually the 25th memo; the 22nd (3/12/2019) also drips of violence [https://tinyurl.com/y428zjty]:

[In] 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 Univ. 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.

I know Blacks have license to use expletives (and self-referential vulgarities) that they (and libs)
(by current cultural double-standards) would condemn non-Blacks for using; yet, its unjustified.