I would like to clarify some points regarding an incident on Sept. 15, 2004, between me and the Students For Justice in Palestine (SJP), at a Student Activities Fair on the Loop campus.

1. There was no shouting, throwing of papers, nor threats made by anyone.

2. I did not identify myself as a faculty member until one of the SJP students asked me as I was leaving.

3. I did not make an obscene gesture at any time.

4. The University has denied me due process as outlined in the Faculty Handbook by allowing Dean Susanne Dumbleton to suspend me without any hearing or written charges. She also insisted I not meet with the students, despite my offer to conciliate with them following the incident.

5. The University has insisted my case concerns conduct, not content. Yet Dean Dumbleton's letter to The DePaulia (Oct. 8, 2005) cites "erroneous assertions" as being sufficient reason to take action against me.

To which of these assertions, then, does she take exception:

a) My disagreement with a SJP student's statement comparing treatment of Palestinians by Israel with Hitler's treatment of the Jews;

b) My assertion that Christians in the Middle East have a right to live there in peace;

c) The term Palestinian, prior to 1948, referred to anyone living in those territories, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, and that only later did that term become associated with Arabs alone...

6. The president of the DePaul stated that I have hired a publicist because I am seeking a great deal of money from the University. The truth is that I have retained an attorney, John Mauck, to represent my interests. The amount of restitution sought is modest in light of my being called a racist and a religious bigot in print, with attendant adverse consequences for my academic career.
7. SJP was first to bring this matter beyond the University through an e-mail sent by its president, Salma Nassar, on Oct. 5, 2004, to various universities and student groups throughout the country.
8. The University now demands (but has not always done so) an apology as a pre-condition to further employment. My question: For what specifically? To date, I have received no written charges. An apology for the content of my speech? For what I said? It would be wrong indeed to censor the students for their ideas and beliefs. However, the University administration, realizing that apologizing for my opinions would amount to an unwarranted censorship of ideas, now asks me to apologize for conduct in which I have not engaged.
9. The draconian penalties to which I have been subjected are deeply distressing in light of the central issue here: free speech.

Thomas E. Klocek

Adjunct Professor

- School of New Learning