Salaita v. Kennedy: Academic Freedom and Contract Law

Introduction

This paper examines a civil lawsuit covered in a newspaper article involving a university lecturer's employment status. The main legal arguments are presented, followed by analysis of the court's decision and the reasoning behind it. The public agreements and disagreements that followed the case are also discussed.

Facts of the Case

Salaita v. Kennedy concerns a lecturer's employment status at the University of Illinois after he made controversial statements on his Twitter account. The following facts are drawn from the Complaint, which the civil court must accept as true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. Dr. Steven Salaita was a tenured instructor at Virginia Tech when he learned that the University of Illinois was seeking a professor to teach its American Indian Studies program (Salaita v. Kennedy).

Dr. Salaita, who had specialized in Native American and Indigenous studies, applied for the position, and the university subsequently began a vetting process (Salaita v. Kennedy). That process concluded with the university sending a letter to the professor — a letter that is at the heart of this lawsuit (Salaita v. Kennedy).

Dr. Salaita resigned from his position at Virginia Tech in anticipation of beginning his new role at the University of Illinois in August. Shortly thereafter, he began relocating his family to Urbana, where the university is located. During this same period, renewed conflict erupted between Israel and Palestine, resulting in the deaths of approximately 2,100 Palestinians, including women and children (Salaita v. Kennedy).

The professor took to Twitter to voice his disapproval. His tweets were heavily critical of Israel's military actions and employed harsh, profanity-laden language. The posts quickly drew widespread media attention, forcing the university to issue a public statement regarding his employment status (Salaita v. Kennedy). In response to a reporter's inquiry, a university spokesperson confirmed that Dr. Salaita was scheduled to begin employment on August 16 as an associate professor in the American Indian Studies program (Salaita v. Kennedy). The spokesperson also affirmed the university's commitment to upholding freedom of speech for all employees.

Despite this initial support, the university's position soon shifted. Emails and letters obtained through the state's Freedom of Information Act revealed that donors, students, and alumni had written to the university's Chancellor to express opposition to Dr. Salaita's appointment. One writer — reportedly a multi-million-dollar donor — stated that he would cease financial support to the university because of the professor's tweets (Salaita v. Kennedy).

The University's Board of Trustees convened on September 11 of that year to vote on new academic appointments. The Board approved 120 new faculty positions in a single vote but elected to vote separately on Dr. Salaita's appointment. The Chancellor stated that, despite the earlier letter recommending his appointment, she was not recommending him for the position. The Board then voted 8–1 to deny Dr. Salaita's appointment (Salaita v. Kennedy).

This vote occurred approximately one month after the official start of the semester — at a point when all other newly appointed associate professors had already begun teaching — and roughly one month after Dr. Salaita's stated start date (Salaita v. Kennedy). According to the lawsuit, this was the first time in the university's history that such an event had occurred.

Legal Counts and Arguments

The Complaint contains nine counts against various defendants. The first count alleges that the President and Vice President of the University, the Chancellor, and the Board of Trustees violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by retaliating against Dr. Salaita for exercising his First Amendment free speech rights (Salaita v. Kennedy).

The second count alleges that the same defendants denied Dr. Salaita procedural due process by depriving him of his position without any post-deprivation remedies. The third count alleges that all named defendants participated in a conspiracy to deny Dr. Salaita his position in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The fourth count claims promissory estoppel against the Board of Trustees (Salaita v. Kennedy).

The fifth count alleges breach of contract against the Board of Trustees. The sixth and seventh counts allege that several donor defendants tortiously interfered with the complainant's business and contractual relations (Salaita v. Kennedy). The eighth count alleges that all named defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the complainant. The tenth count is a state-law claim for destruction of evidence against the Chancellor, who is alleged to have destroyed a two-page letter from one of the donors (Salaita v. Kennedy).

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts under Rule 12(b)(6). Such a motion, challenging a party's failure to state a claim, tests the legal adequacy of the complaint — for example, as articulated in Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief; accordingly, under Rule 12(b)(6) a court must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true (Salaita v. Kennedy). The court is not required, however, to accept legal conclusions or causes of action supported only by conclusory statements.

The university's primary argument was that it never entered into a valid legal contract with Dr. Salaita (Salaita v. Kennedy). The university also contended that the language in its offer letter was conditional on Board of Trustees approval, and that any acceptance of Dr. Salaita's application was therefore similarly conditional (Salaita v. Kennedy). In response, Dr. Salaita argued that the condition applied only to performance under the teaching contract — not to the offer itself — and that Board approval was a mere formality, ministerial in nature (Salaita v. Kennedy).

The central issue in the case was thus whether a binding agreement existed between the university and Dr. Salaita. The professor contended that by signing and returning the university's offer letter, he had entered into an employment contract that the university breached by terminating him on account of his political speech (Salaita v. Kennedy). The university maintained that he never became an employee and that any appointment remained conditional on Board approval. Because most arguments from both sides turned on the existence of a contract, the court first examined the breach-of-contract and promissory estoppel counts before addressing the remaining claims (Salaita v. Kennedy).

Conclusion

The case of Salaita v. Kennedy raised profound questions at the intersection of contract law, First Amendment protections, and the limits of institutional authority over faculty expression. The court's decision to allow the contract and constitutional claims to proceed acknowledged both the legitimacy of Dr. Salaita's legal grievances and the complexity of the underlying facts. The public debate surrounding the case reflected broader tensions in higher education between donor influence, academic freedom, civil discourse, and the role of social media in professional life — tensions that remain unresolved well beyond the courtroom.

References

Flanagin, J. (2014, October 2). Steven Salaita and the quagmire of academic freedom. The New York Times Op-Talk Blog. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/steven-salaita-and-the-quagmire-of-academic-freedom/

Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., & Edwards, F. L. (2015). The legal environment of business (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Salaita v. Kennedy, No. 1:2015cv00924 (N.D. Ill. 2015). Retrieved September 19, 2015, from Justia U.S. Case Law.