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
December 14, 2018

To: Patrick J. O’Connor, Esq., Chair, Temple University Board of Trustees – Plus Trustees
Re: Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. [D.O.B. 12/17/1978]
Cc: {}

The immediate impact of your faulty decision not to fire Hill—as anticipated—was that he has reinforced
concerns raised in these letters and has failed to rectify his multiple errors, as summarized yesterday
[https://tinyurl.com/y8dp24jk], a terse/comprehensive data/analysis distillation/elucidation linked to
two supportive letters. This update recapitulates and amplifies this bill-of-particulars by quoting from his
38:52-minute interview on “The Breakfast Club” this morning, broadcast live in New York and delayed in
Philly (on WUSL-FM 98.9 FM on Sunday @ 8 a.m.) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_5k6AJoNDs].
Also, provided is a perspective on their impact by quoting a statement issued by the rabbi at a regional
synagogue. Although some (including Hill) apparently feel the issue of his ongoing employment at Temple
has been resolved, it is felt that further scrutiny will yield a proper conclusion: that he be fired forthwith.

Although the conversation appears to wander among hot-button topics, its linear-flow is captured herein
by noting key-quotes [and the approximate “minute” when they were uttered]; annotation is segregated,
lest the impact of myriad manifestations of his basic riff be diminished by its being interrupted. Essentially,
he cleverly interlaces the BLM-narrative (colonialism yielding white-slaveholders, perpetuated despite
the end of the War Between the States in 1985) with the alleged plight of Palestinian Arabs (due to the
lack of a unified, democratic polity that extends “from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea”).
Notwithstanding his faux-apologia, his message is immutable regardless of whatever “language” is used
to convey it; the import inter alia poisons the discerning mind when recognizing his host-institution.

His interviewers routinely chimed-in supportive comments, 100% uncritically, dutifully integrated infra;
meanwhile, articulating views interspersed with jive-talk and Ebonics, Hill’s message was unnerving.

0 CNN did not tell him he was fired because he is anti-Semitic; he was told that his speech was not in
line with its values; his claim that Free Palestine should extend “from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea” was falsely interpreted as dog-whistling for Israel’s destruction, upsetting a small
sector of (primarily Jewish) people (while other Jews are OK with it).
2 He was advocating that no one should live under oppression, a view that was promoted by both
Malcolm X and Huey Newton; this Apartheid-type concern extends globally, from America to the
Middle East and to South America, for “we are all oppressed by the same system.”
3 Israeli Arabs have the ability to vote, but people can be prevented from living in a given neighborhood.
5 Palestinian Arabs are tried in a military (not civil) court, carrying a 99.73% conviction-rate.
6 Gaza is an open-air prison, ruled by Hamas but bordered by Israel by land/sea/air; this is another
example of a tragic human rights issue that must be addressed by in Israel and abroad. He does not
wish to destroy Israel when he advocates for a new model of what democracy looks like; it is not
religion-controlled (Jewish or Muslim or Christian) because it is a secular state where everyone votes.

1
7 Israel is still building settlements on the West Bank. He was shocked and unhappy that CNN had fired
him because he will miss the $, after having remodeled his home; he will not litigate this issue.
8 Temple released a statement stating he wouldn’t be fired while condemning him. He averred that
he’s protected from being fired due to speech-freedom yielded by tenure; he depicted a process
whereby tenure-track instructors achieve this status.
9 He is the highest-ranking professor @ Temple because he is a Professor with a Chair and tenure.
10 He denied his criticism of the Israeli government constituted hate-speech, averring that the “river to
the sea” phraseology has been employed for a century by everybody, including by Likud in 1974;
during his recent trip (from which he had returned 10 days prior), he found “everyone was using it.”
11 Apologized if people felt the phrase had caused harm; helped to rebuild the Pittsburgh synagogue.
12 Differentiates between disagreeing with Israel and being anti-Semitic.
13 Condemns humiliation at checkpoints of the 80-year-old man who must pull down his pants and the
child observing this ritual; condemns the need for a woman to walk through forests and bushes to
avoid checkpoints. Arab merchants are fined into bankruptcy, children are beaten, stop-and-frisk
occurs in East Jerusalem, people are being killed and maimed.
14 Recognizes history of Holocaust, concluding “unless everyone has freedom, no one is safe.”
15 Media misreported his interaction with Farrakhan, creating a headline that didn’t reflect his quotes;
essentially, he disagrees with Farrakhan (on anti-Semitism and on LGBT), but doesn’t condemn him.
17 Association with Farrakhan is unique; people are expected to condemn him. “If you meet with him
and don’t throw him away, you’re castigated in a way that doesn’t happen to anyone else; there is a
weird litmus test that is applied only to Black leaders, who must ritually denounce Farrakhan so as to
sustain a position.” His spiritual conservative/right-wing messages are in a Black Nationalist Tradition.
(This also explains efforts to purge Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory from the Women’s movement.)
18 He opposes anti-Semitism, homophobia, rampant capitalism, patriarchy, (prejudice against) trans [?].
19 Has no luxury to throw-away quality, clean people; Trump is a proxy for his policies.
20 Project of Freedom must liberate disabled, elderly, queers/trans-folk; ultimately, the goal is to work
with people who love Black people (without exploiting them).
21 There is no “Black” ADL, an entity that would be needed to come to his defense in times like these;
nation-building entails having our own institutions, both traditional ones (NAACP, Urban League,
National Action Network) and newer ones (Dream Defenders). noting his CNN experience, he said,
“We won’t be subject to being fired if we have our own organizations” for “No organization will
provide space for you, if your message undermines its power.”
22 Wants to abolish prisons and wants a one-state solution, topics that are difficult for others to accept;
he has expertise in the Middle East, but CNN booked him only to participate in three such segments.
23 He was glad he was called when a Black person gets shot, for “state violence against Black bodies is
something that must be taken seriously.” He is a Green Party person, and this doesn’t fit-in when the
structure of a segment is R-D.
24 All except one Black person on CNN has been supportive [particularly Angela Dewan].
25 One must not be a slave to a job; it’s desirable to “walk and chew gum simultaneously” because the
problems of Blacks here and Palestinian Arabs are intertwined.
26 New York City police who are killing Blacks are being trained by Israelis.
27 Feels more afraid in America than in Palestine because he feels far more anonymous overseas,
whereas we have far more reactionary violence here; we are in the Trump-era, where dissent can
often lead to death. Not scared as much as worried.
28 Zionism is ok, except when it intrudes on the safety of Palestinian Arabs.
29 Doesn’t support terrorism or killing innocents, but not every resistance-act by Palestinian Arabs is
terroristic; condemns collective punishment, which violates international law.

2
30 It’s terrible that a pregnant Jewish mother was killed two days ago, but it’s justifiable for Palestinian
Arabs to push-back after Israelis have “raided their house”; international law says occupied people
have a legal right to resist (as per Malcolm X), and he supports self-defense in that situation.
Specifically, he supports a violent response to a violent act.
31 Busy, and may get back into cable news; not hateful.
32 Wants people to support transnational issues, not just Palestine; note Africa and South America.
33 Wants people to read books and to support libraries.
34 Malcolm X’s life was saved by books.
35 That Temple condemned him for speech is scary; people should be cancelled if they misstep once;
people shouldn’t be disposed-of, thrown-away.
37 People must be held accountable, but it’s necessary to fight Empire and Colonialism; must fight for
oppressed.

These citations (minute-#’s inserted) recapitulate the four faculty-conduct criteria that supersede any
claim of “academic-freedom,” for they perpetuate his pattern of [1]—spreading inaccurate information
[2]—showing no restraint; [3]—viewing contrary postures with scorn; and [4]—failing to provide an
explicit disclaimer which identifies him as speaking only for himself rather than for Temple. In addition,
Hill satisfied the four legal exceptions that shed any “speech-freedom” defense: [1]—fighting words;
[2]— true threat; [3]—defamation (libel and slander); and [4]—incitement to imminent lawless action.

Hill demonstrated moral turpitude, for his conduct shocks the public conscience and does not fall within
the moral standards held by the community. [This relates directly to the TAUH-OK’ed Faculty Handbook:
“…[U]niversity teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational
institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or
discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and
educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their
institution by their utterances.” http://www.temple.edu/Senate/documents/ faculty_handbook.pdf].

Hill harbors values that were condemned by Temple and, thus, neither reflect Temple’s reputation nor
the ethics of the local/regional/statewide/national community. After he has been promptly FIRED, the
Board should investigate how he was hired without a meaningful background-check, given tenure and
a salary, and let-loose without evidence that oversight of his activities was effectuated by his Dean.

supersede any claim of “academic-freedom”

[1]—“spreading inaccurate information”

Some claims may be subject to debate, but others are prima facie false; without going into exhaustive
detail, the following exemplify the sloppy academics of this self-described expert on the Middle East
[assertions that he then invokes during a soft-ball interview to sway his Black audience to oppose Israel]:

4 Israeli Arabs have the ability to vote, but people can be prevented from living in a given neighborhood.

Lawmakers removed a clause allowing the establishment of "separate communities" that was
criticized as racist, replacing it with a clause encouraging "Jewish settlement."

[https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/7/19/outrage-and-concern-as-israel-
passes-apartheid-law].

3
5 Palestinian Arabs are tried in a military (not civil) court, carrying a 99.73% conviction-rate.

…The statistic is based on a single year of data, which is now seven years old. There is no
indication of whether this would be true for 2016 or for any other year. Beyond that, however,
the numbers alone, devoid of context, don’t give the full picture of the process in the Israeli
military courts in the territories. The statistic, therefore, is highly misleading.

Criminal prosecutions differ from civil (that is, non-criminal) cases in one very important
respect: unlike civil plaintiffs, a criminal prosecutor has an obligation to bring only those cases
in which there is substantial evidence to support a conviction….

https://www.camera.org/article/the-conviction-rate-in-idf-tribunals-is-it-too-high/

6 Gaza is an open-air prison, ruled by Hamas but bordered by Israel by land/sea/air; this is another
example of a tragic human rights issue that must be addressed by in Israel and abroad. He does not
wish to destroy Israel when he advocates for a new model of what democracy looks like; it is not
religion-controlled (Jewish or Muslim or Christian) because it is a secular state where everyone votes.

Egypt borders Gaza and Israel provides essential utilities, even as rockets are fired against
civilians. He does want to destroy Israel as a Jewish state if he advocates it be supplanted by
a secular entity.

7 Israel is still building settlements on the West Bank.

Jews have the right to live anywhere they desire, noting he would empower Palestinian Arabs
in like-fashion; the approval process for new construction to occur is tedious.

10 He denied his criticism of the Israeli government constituted hate-speech, averring that the “river to
the sea” phraseology has been employed for a century by everybody, including by Likud in 1974;
during his recent trip (from which he had returned 10 days prior), he found “everyone was using it.”

PA's official stationary suggests and its supporters chant, "from the [Jordan] river to the
[Mediterranean] sea, Palestine will be free."

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2018/september/report-arafat-hoped-israelis-
would-flee-like-rats-after-oslo

Yet, a recent article praising Hill failed to trace this phrase back a century.

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/12/river-israels-sovereignty/

Overlooked is the fact that the British Mandate for Palestine determined that “The Jordan river
was chosen as the border between the two territories.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

4
13 Condemns humiliation at checkpoints of the 80-year-old man who must pull down his pants and the
child observing this ritual; condemns the need for a woman to walk through forests and bushes to
avoid checkpoints. Arab merchants are fined into bankruptcy, children are beaten, stop-and-frisk
occurs in East Jerusalem, people are being killed and maimed.

Each of these claims must be documented but, overall, what’s overlooked is the fact that Israel
must impose security to minimize the risk of terroristic attacks, which Hill “regretted.”

17 Association with Farrakhan is unique; people are expected to condemn him. “If you meet with him
and don’t throw him away, you’re castigated in a way that doesn’t happen to anyone else; there is a
weird litmus test that is applied only to Black leaders, who must ritually denounce Farrakhan so as to
sustain a position.” His spiritual conservative/right-wing messages are in a Black Nationalist Tradition.
(This also explains efforts to purge Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory from the Women’s movement.)

David Duke is in a comparable category of people worthy of universal condemnation; indeed,

one must condemn an individual (no matter his self-proclaimed “ministerial” pursuits) who—
for his professional lifetime—has considered Jews inter alia to be “termites.”

26 New York City police who are killing Blacks are being trained by Israelis.

Both the antecedent and predicate are undocumented and defamatory, the expression of
which undermines respect for law-and-order.

30 It’s terrible that a pregnant Jewish mother was killed two days ago, but it’s justifiable for Palestinian
Arabs to push-back after Israelis have “raided their house”; international law says occupied people
have a legal right to resist (as per Malcolm X), and he supports self-defense in that situation.
Specifically, he supports a violent response to a violent act.

The fetus was killed, not the mother. The Israelis cannot be “occupying” Palestinian Arabs
when there was never a time when Palestinian Arabs governed Judea/Samaria (noting the
historical record dating backward from when artificially-sculpted Jordan ruled until 1967).

https://www.biblio.com/9781414506920

supersede any claim of “academic-freedom”

[2]—showing no restraint

8 Temple released a statement stating he wouldn’t be fired while condemning him. He averred that
he’s protected from being fired due to speech-freedom yielded by tenure; he depicted a process
whereby tenure-track instructors achieve this status.
9 He is the highest-ranking professor @ Temple because he is a Professor with a Chair and tenure.
35 That Temple condemned him for speech is scary; people should be cancelled if they misstep once;
people shouldn’t be disposed-of, thrown-away.

He now considers himself to be immune to critique; after having noted his Trustee-reprieve,
he inexplicably professed to feeling frightened; curiously, he omitted reference to whether he
had traversed the tenure-approval process that he had depicted.

5
 supersede any claim of “academic-freedom”
[3]—viewing contrary postures with scorn

22 Wants to abolish prisons and wants a one-state solution, topics that are difficult for others to accept;
he has expertise in the Middle East, but CNN booked him only to participate in three such segments.

Failing to state what he would perceive as the ideal disposition for felons and failing to
acknowledge that his vision of “Palestine” must dismember Israel, per the Balfour Declaration,
these exemplify how disconnected his ideas are from the breadth of American Thought.

11 Apologized if people felt the phrase had caused harm; helped to rebuild the Pittsburgh synagogue.

Failing to apologize for his overall message, he cannot hide behind any philanthropic initiative;
by refraining to acknowledge any of these concerns by issuing a formal Statement in reply to
the issuance of the Trustee Statement, he fails to telegraph any interest in accommodation.

supersede any claim of “academic-freedom”

[4]—failing to provide an explicit disclaimer which identifies him as speaking only for
himself rather than for Temple

There is no moment when he claims he speaks for himself rather than for Temple; the absence of this level
of acknowledgement following issuance of the Trustee Statement continues to poison his comments for,
in the absence of such clarification, the U.N. speech can be perceived as his having conveyed Temple’s
policy toward the Middle East. The same is true for all other easily ID’ed speeches from the Internet.

legal exceptions that shed any “speech-freedom” defense

[1]—fighting words

12 Differentiates between disagreeing with Israel and being anti-Semitic.

14 Recognizes history of Holocaust, concluding “unless everyone has freedom, no one is safe.”
18 He opposes anti-Semitism, homophobia, rampant capitalism, patriarchy, (prejudice against) trans [?].
28 Zionism is ok, except when it intrudes on the safety of Palestinian Arabs.
31 Busy, and may get back into cable news; not hateful.

Yesterday, an op-ed regarding these issues was quoted to illustrate [a]—that one cannot be
anti-Zionist without demonstrating hatred for Jewry, and [b]—that the “No Home for Hate”
initiative constitutes “virtue signaling” which, actually, may convey its converse. Therefore,
claiming to be pristine and idealistic cannot rationalize away underlying distaste for Israel.

19 Has no luxury to throw-away quality, clean people; Trump is a proxy for his policies.
27 Feels more afraid in America than in Palestine because he feels far more anonymous overseas,
whereas we have far more reactionary violence here; we are in the Trump-era, where dissent can
often lead to death. Not scared as much as worried.

Viewed in the aggregate, his aversion to Trump is based upon his view that Trump is a front
for colonial/corporate interests that promulgate violence against oppressed people such as
Blacks and Palestinian Arabs; furthermore, unjustifiably, he claims Trump has promoted lethal
efforts to suppress dissent, a claim that smacks of sedition.

6
 legal exceptions that shed any “speech-freedom” defense
[2]— true threat

15 Media misreported his interaction with Farrakhan, creating a headline that didn’t reflect his quotes;
essentially, he disagrees with Farrakhan (on anti-Semitism and on LGBT), but doesn’t condemn him.
17 Association with Farrakhan is unique; people are expected to condemn him. “If you meet with him
and don’t throw him away, you’re castigated in a way that doesn’t happen to anyone else; there is a
weird litmus test that is applied only to Black leaders, who must ritually denounce Farrakhan so as to
sustain a position.” His spiritual conservative/right-wing messages are in a Black Nationalist Tradition.
(This also explains efforts to purge Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory from the Women’s movement.)

Anyone who does not denounce Farrakhan for more than his Jew-hatred is endorsing his overt
threats against others, notably Caucasians. Already noted is the false claim that Farrakhan
should be immune from denunciation, for he isn’t uniquely positioned (n.b., David Duke).
Although as an aside, he encompassed the Jew-haters in the Women’s March Movement
within his orbit, opposing their being purged from future events. Thus, by failing to attack the
aggregate message promulgated by Farrakhan, he allows for his combativeness to survive.

23 He was glad he was called when a Black person gets shot, for “state violence against Black bodies is
something that must be taken seriously.” He is a Green Party person, and this doesn’t fit-in when the
structure of a segment is R-D.
20 Project of Freedom must liberate disabled, elderly, queers/trans-folk; ultimately, the goal is to work
with people who love Black people (without exploiting them).
21 There is no “Black” ADL, an entity that would be needed to come to his defense in times like these;
nation-building entails having our own institutions, both traditional ones (NAACP, Urban League,
National Action Network) and newer ones (Dream Defenders). noting his CNN experience, he said,
“We won’t be subject to being fired if we have our own organizations” for “No organization will
provide space for you, if your message undermines its power.”

The “Black Power” component to his polemics is derivative of the writings of Malcolm X, who
attempted to transmute Black-Pride into the precursor of the BLM-types. Rhetoric assuming
there is “state violence against Black bodies” can only inflame the listener who might wish to
identify with the speaker; this increases the risk that, for example, retribution might then
become manifest as a random-murder of a police officer or state trooper.

25 One must not be a slave to a job; it’s desirable to “walk and chew gum simultaneously” because the
problems of Blacks here and Palestinian Arabs are intertwined.
32 Wants people to support transnational issues, not just Palestine; note Africa and South America.

The unnerving implications of his brand of liberation theology is to endorse the sermons of
Rev. Jeremiah Wright; again, “Intersectionality” is promulgated in an effort to mesh ideologies
of seemingly like-minded individuals—with the focus upon upending America’s rule-of-law.
Alarmism is justifiable when a genuine initiative has been ID’ed that is intended to undermine
America’s domestic and overseas agenda and interests; that the references here are global
(except for Europe, which is already up-to-its-eyeballs in imported Jihadism) is no-accident.

7
 legal exceptions that shed any “speech-freedom” defense
[3]—defamation (libel and slander)

6 Gaza is an open-air prison, ruled by Hamas but bordered by Israel by land/sea/air; this is another
example of a tragic human rights issue that must be addressed by in Israel and abroad. He does not
wish to destroy Israel when he advocates for a new model of what democracy looks like; it is not
religion-controlled (Jewish or Muslim or Christian) because it is a secular state where everyone votes.

This is far more than inaccurate (ignoring the Philadelphi geography of Gaza, abutting Egypt),
for it ignores what Israel does as Hamas bombs her civilians, providing utilities and supplies.
Meshing this attack with endorsement of a secular state to supplant Israel is disingenuous,
for the human rights enjoyed by Israeli Arabs are unmatched in any Muslim country. In fact,
invoking these alleged atrocities to justify destroying the recognized Zionist foundations of the
re-establishment of the Modern State of Israel yields the conclusion that this might serve as a
basis for aggressive action against the presumed perpetrators of such evil deeds.

26 New York City police who are killing Blacks are being trained by Israelis.

The unnerving implications of his brand of liberation theology is to endorse the sermons of
Rev. Jeremiah Wright; again, “Intersectionality” is promulgated in an effort to mesh ideologies
of seemingly like-minded individuals—with the focus upon upending America’s rule-of-law.
Alarmism is justifiable when a genuine initiative has been ID’ed that is intended to undermine
America’s domestic and overseas agenda and interests; that the references here are global
(except for Europe, which is already up-to-its-eyeballs in imported Jihadism) is no-accident.

legal exceptions that shed any “speech-freedom” defense

[4]—incitement to imminent lawless action.

23 He was glad he was called when a Black person gets shot, for “state violence against black bodies is
something that must be taken seriously.” He is a Green Party person, and this doesn’t fit-in when the
structure of a segment is R-D.
29 Doesn’t support terrorism or killing innocents, but not every resistance-act by Palestinian Arabs is
terroristic; condemns collective punishment, which violates international law.
37 People must be held accountable, but it’s necessary to fight Empire and Colonialism; must fight for
oppressed.

The use of “but”-posturing to attempt to justify violence is thematic in his oral/written words.
Again, he endorsed “resistance” in the presence of “state violence against black bodies.”
Furthermore, there is a certain irony in condemning collective punishment, when this is the
modus operandi of terrorists who create turmoil in both Judea/Samaria and the Old City of
Jerusalem by targeting non-military targets (Israelis). The call-to-arms against Empire and
Colonialism is “old” when the exertion of post-USSR power is so complex in each region.

{It seems the Information-Police have come to Hill’s defense, for this entry by Daily News Columnist
Christine Flowers reportedly triggered unexplained imposition of a 24-hour Facebook account freeze:
"Marc Lamont Hill, your heroes just shot a pregnant Israeli woman. Her baby, delivered by Caesarean,
died. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University professor, your comrades in arms murdered a Jewish child. And
the blood is flowing river to sea."}

8
 Summary

Hill’s actions reflect neither Temple’s reputation nor the ethics of the local/regional/statewide/national
community. After he has been promptly FIRED, the Board should investigate how he was hired without
a meaningful background-check, given tenure and a salary, and let-loose without evidence that
oversight of his activities was effectuated by his Dean. One can easily envision a standing agenda-item
being added to the Trustee Board meetings, aggregating quotes subject to being “condemned.” Indeed,
that’s why the initial letter raised the query as to whether the “tail” is now wagging the “dog.”

Quoting the Faculty Handbook, the special position of university teachers in the community imposes
special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may
judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hill demonstrated moral turpitude, for
his conduct shocks the public conscience and does not fall within the moral standards held by the
community. That Hill harbors values that were condemned by Temple carries ongoing import.

All eight of the established criteria for maintaining a good-standing status among Faculty have been
addressed in this and in prior letters; four show he doesn’t merit speech-freedom and four show he
doesn’t merit academic-freedom. The man’s arrogance has blossomed, victimizing his host-institution,
and his continued rock-star posture threatens to besmirch Temple’s position in the Academy.

Recalling that the Trustee Statement failed to address these trenchant concerns, it is hoped that the
ongoing inquiry into this scandal will yield a greater recognition of how foreign are his political ideas
to the outer reaches of colloquy among Temple’s TRUE experts in areas Hill CLAIMS to have mastered.

This letter has been composed expeditiously due to the urgency of what faces Temple, for issuance of
the Trustee Statement has only served to exacerbate an already-explosive campus/regional mood.
Thus, the Trustees must assess the way Hill was hired (with tenure, absent input from his colleagues)
and, thereafter, discern whether he and Dean Boardman must be excised from Temple’s Body Politic.

Executive Summary

Hill’s 11/28/2018 speech triggered turmoil with local/national implications, for he violated the four
faculty-conduct criteria that supersede any claim of “academic-freedom” and satisfied the four legal
criteria that shed “speech-freedom” defense by showing moral turpitude when fomenting violence;
these are applicable regardless of whether an individual is tenured and regardless of the purported
credibility of the cause for which he/she is advocating. A “compromise” cannot be effectuated, for the
only method to protect defenseless students (of all ages) from his input is to ensure he has no classroom
contact (notwithstanding off-campus conduct); his reprehensible ideology is so thoroughly engrained—
particularly when videos are scrutinized—that the only reasonable remedy is to discharge him and then
to permit him to reapply after he has demonstrated a pattern of [1]—spreading accurate information,
[2]—showing restraint; [3]—viewing contrary postures without scorn; and [4]—providing an explicit
disclaimer which identifies him as speaking only for himself rather than for Temple. Hill is a Jew-hating
anarchist—a radical-racist rabble-rouser—who harbors values that neither reflect Temple’s reputation
nor the ethics of the local/regional/statewide/national community. After he has been promptly FIRED,
the Board should investigate how he was hired without a meaningful background-check, given tenure
and a salary, and let-loose without evidence that oversight of his activities was effectuated by his Dean.

THUS, I REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU TO REVIEW HILL’S CONTRACT.