OPINION: Even if he ends up establishing a legal claim, his judgment is questionable
A Stanford University lecturer who conducted an academic “exercise” on the Israel-Hamas conflict suffered a legal setback recently over his firing.
Ameer Loggins challenged the nonrenewal of his contract by the private Palo Alto university.
Stanford declined to renew his contract five months after Loggins faced scrutiny for how he chose to teach about Hamas’ attack on Israel.
The October 10, 2023 “exercise” used a “white/Jewish male” and a “woman of Asian descent,” according to the Aug. 26 ruling. The purpose was to use “physical size to illustrate a power differential between the large and the small, the oppressed and the oppressor.”
As further stated in the ruling:
After the selected students agreed to participate in the exercise, Dr. Loggins took their backpacks and computers and directed them to stand facing the classroom window. Dr. Loggins told the participating students they could come from facing the window if they could produce identification. The purpose of the exercise was to illustrate “profiling and policing within a scripted space.” Dr. Loggins asserts Gaza “is an extreme version of a scripted space.”
Loggins (pictured) filed a variety of complaints against a handful of Stanford individuals. The judge allowed him to amend some of his claims, so he still has a chance to win on some motions.
But even if he does, Loggins appears to lack the good sense a professor needs to teach about a difficult topic such as the Israel-Hamas war.
His own accounting of what happened shows he believed his mission as a professor was to push a specific viewpoint of the war, not to facilitate open and free debate.
The “focus” was supposed to be on “Palestinian civilians.” But Israeli citizens were murdered by terrorists.
He also wanted to find Jewish students who could “speak to the diversity within the Jewish diaspora and to demonstrate to the students that the Jewish diaspora is not one with a monolithic politic.” So, the point was not to solicit a variety of views on the subject but to find Jewish students who would speak out against Israel.
These facts, which are from his own version, prove his point was to criticize Israel in the class.
The “difficult dialogue” he sought was not truly a dialogue – it was a monologue.
Loggins could have used the opportunity to teach his students about free and open debate.
He could have selected articles on the Oct. 7 attack from a pro-Israel website, like Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and a pro-Palestinian website, like Haaretz.
He then could have discussed how media outlets can come to different versions of important events. He could have had students read the original founding documents of Israel and Hamas’ charter.
It is possible Loggins was out of his league trying to teach on this topic – his doctorate is in African Diaspora Studies with a focus on television. “His research explores Reality Television as a social phenomena, and how its effects on the perception of African Americans outside of a televisual space,” according to his UC Berkeley biography, where he is a graduate student.
Different scenarios suggest it was right for him to lose his teaching job.
He might have the knowledge and skills to teach about a complex topic in a fair way, but chose not to do so. In this case, it was just to fire someone who did not attempt to present various viewpoints on this issue.
Or he lacks the ability to compile sources to discuss this current topic in a neutral manner.
If this is the case, he deserved to get voted off the island.
MORE: Yale divinity students forced to read from witch’s ‘spell’
IMAGE: Nicole’s View/YouTube
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.