By: Jacob, Alexis, Deedee, Stefan, and Alyssa

The authors profile (identity, occupation, reason involved in

discussion, purpose in article)

Steven Salaita
Former Teacher at Virginia Tech
Denied employment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign due to tweets

described as Anti-Semitic
"At this point, if Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of

Palestinian children, would anybody be surprised?" - Salaita 2015

He brings up the question of free speech and debate on campuses.
Is there such a thing as too much free speech?
Would one call it radical or extremist?

______________________________________________________________________

The authors claim and reasons (be direct and specific; list the main

reasons the author holds the position)

Position: Unless the system changes at a basic level, everybody is merely buying

shares in a corporation with the power to dissolve our interests the moment we become

an inconvenience.
Salaita chooses to communicate with incivility. Allows him to say what needs to be

said. Keeps his interests. Salaita is only a part of changing the system. If it is not acted

upon, no change will ever be made and justice will not be gained.
Strong language that Salaita speaks with is in response to brutal acts happening in our

world. Claims that in a better world, these brutal acts would bring widespread rancor.

System needs to take this into consideration.

You tell me which is worse: cussing in condemnation of the murder of children or using

impeccable manners to justify their murder.

Encourages students to argue with him. Never tells them what to think, treats them as

adults.
System needs to be changed for the well-being of students. Education is supposed to

be about them, not how much money an institution is making.

 Less focus on having administrators and have more of a faculty to meet demands of

students. System must change.

______________________________________________________________________

The audience for the article (place of publication, who are the

readers, other clues as to who will care)

Subscribers of the Chronicle Review
People affiliated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
People affiliated with higher education
Supporters of Steven Salaita
People who frequent his social media accounts
Those who have tried to discredit and condemn him

______________________________________________________________________

The genre and conventions of the article (what kind of article, style,

format)
Opinionated Personal Non Fiction
Published in a magazine/online magazine database
Told in first person
Factual information about a significant event presented in a format which tells a story
Usually considers a moral objective

______________________________________________________________________

Other existing perspectives on the issue that the author

acknowledges
With the brio and wisdom for which right-wing websites are known, the piece begins,

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has continued its bizarre quest to

employ as many disgusting scumbags as possible by acquiring the services of Steven

Salaita, a leading light in the movement among similarly obscure academics to boycott

Israel."
People call him uncivil, intemperate, inappropriate, aggressive.
 People shy away from obscenity.
Academics are usually eager to contest censorship and deconstruct vague charges of

vulgarity. When it comes to defending Israel, though, anything goes. If theres no serious

moral or political argument in response to criticism of Israel, then condemn the speaker

for various failures of "tone" and "appropriateness." Emphasis placed on the speaker

and not on Israel. A word becomes more relevant than an array of war crimes.
People associate his ability to teach directly with his controversy
Professors are usually punished for disrupting conventions in informative ways,

however he was targeted.

People call him an anti-semite with no facts.
Administrators with deep pockets for the school only care about upholding the

reputation of the school

Universities want to limit critical thinking

Key Words:

Free Speech Darling

Representation

Accusation

Anti-Semitic

Uncivil

Civil

Assumption

Hand-wringing

Termination

Power

Administrators
 Dissimulation

What is the specific problem being addressed?

Who is affected? Who gains or loses?
Who currently holds the power? Who is vulnerable?