Dr. Tomomi Kinukawa shares their opening and closing statements in their grievance hearing against San Francisco State University for suppressing justice-centered pedagogy critical of Israel.
DR. TOMOMI KINUKAWA
On March 18, 2022 the hearing was held for the grievance that I, faculty lecturer in Women and Gender Studies (WGS), filed against San Francisco State University for its Administration’s role in silencing the AMED/WGS open classroom on “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled,” that I had a great honor to co-organize with Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Director of Arab Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas (AMED) Studies. After an adjournment, the remaining part of the grievance hearing was held on April 12, 2022.
On March 18, 2022 the hearing was held for the grievance that I, faculty lecturer in Women and Gender Studies (WGS), filed against San Francisco State University for its Administration’s role in silencing the AMED/WGS open classroom on “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled,” that I had a great honor to co-organize with Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Director of Arab Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas (AMED) Studies. After an adjournment, the remaining part of the grievance hearing was held on April 12, 2022.
On April 26, 2022, Faculty Hearing Panel (FHP) ruled unanimously in favor of our academic freedom; ordered SFSU to apologize to Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and myself, and promptly hold our open classroom, “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice and Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled.” (see here). The landmark decision affirms:
“We unanimously conclude that the Employer [SFSU] violated the Grievant’s [Professor Kinukawa] right to academic freedom. The Grievant has carried their burden of persuasion in demonstrating the grievance.
Given the nature of the injury, we conclude the following remedies are appropriate:
1. San Francisco State University issues a public apology to Dr. Kinukawa for failing to uphold their right to academic freedom.
2. Develop a workaround from Zoom for delivery of the event (or similarly situated events) to avoid disruption of academic scholarship and teaching. This remedy may not (and likely will not) require creation of a new platform from scratch. Rather, the remedy orders the Employer to coordinate a good-faith resolution of this matter and bring an end to the continuing violation of working conditions.”
In addressing the remedies, the FHP stated:
“Pursuant to the Faculty Hearing Manual, this Faculty Hearing Committee is given ‘discretion’ in fashioning remedies. See Faculty Hearing Manual IV. Relevant considerations include: (a) how serious was the violation; (b) was the violation prejudicial; (c) what loss did the faculty member suffer as a result of the violation; and (d) based on the nature of the loss, what remedies will make the faculty member whole for any losses suffered. Id. at IV(B).”
The FHC meticulously built their case using the “broken pipe” theory that Dr. Abdulhadi discussed in her testimony and that which she had conceptualized right after the silencing in September 2020 (Abdulhadi, October 23, 2020). The FHC’s righteous decision underscores our colleagues’ resolve in refusing to remain silent against injustice and defy what Dr. Abdulhadi (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) has called the New McCarthyism replicating the McCarthy witch hunt era–an unfortunate abdication of academic integrity which took decades to rectify.
The decision is our collective victory and a vindication for the movement fiercely led by Dr. Abdulhadi to defend AMED and Teaching Palestine: Pedagogical Praxis and the Indivisibility of Justice at SFSU and beyond, supported by CFA SFSU Chapter and the amazing and invincible members of the International Campaign to Defend Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, whose names I will list and recognize each and everyone for their steadfast support and having our backs.
Following the unanimous decisions by two Faculty Hearing Panels’ that sided with Dr. Abdulhadi in her two statutory grievances, the third FHP’s decision sent a powerful message to SFSU administrators, condemning their collusion with private tech companies, the apartheid state of Israel, Zionist organizations and their multi-year attempts to censor our teaching, control our curriculum, silence Dr. Abdulhadi and AMED Studies, and smear, bully and seek to dismantle the justice-centered critical AMED pedagogy that is inspired by the spirit of ’68 SFSU Strike, led by the Black Student Union and the Third World Liberation Front.
In a complete disregard for the faculty shared governance, however, SFSU President Lynn Mahoney vetoed all the three rulings by the faculty panels. On May 17, 2022, following her vetoes of the faculty panel rulings for Dr. Abdulhadi’s grievances, President Lynn Mahoney yet again vetoed the unanimous ruling in favor of my grievance. As Dr. Abdulhadi’s friend, the late Palestinian Al Jazeera reporter, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was assassinated by the Israeli occupying army in Jenin, affirms, “Dissemination of truth is the biggest fear and threat” to Israeli Zionists. President Mahoney’s vetoes only prove her fear of Dr. Abdulhadi’s work that deeply resonates with Shireen Abu Akleh’s insistence to speak truth to power, for which she lost her life.
In protesting against the massive injustice, I am publishing the opening and closing statements that I read at my grievance hearing. I wrote both statements in a close collaboration with Dr. Abdulhadi. Throughout the grievance process, Dr. Abdulhadi generously shared her decade-long critical theorizing with me and ensured that I am always intellectually empowered. Dr. Abdulhadi also even helped copy-edit my drafts of the statements and sharpen my argument at the earliest hours in the morning of the hearing. The capitalist and colonial notion of authorship does absolutely no justice to our collaborative working process.
CONTINUE READING
No comments:
Post a Comment