I wrongly disparaged the Star Tribune in “Investigation of a university above reporting.” The Star Tribune reported the story later that day in “University of Minnesota ‘firmly against antisemitism’ after new federal investigation is announced.” It’s a good straight news story.
To what I wrote the Star Tribune adds that “[t]he scrutiny comes after a U law professor and former regent last winter filed a complaint about antisemitism in the U’s College of Liberal Arts. According to the Department of Education’s website, the investigation is still open.” The University of Minnesota Law School Professor Richard Painter and former Regent Michael Hsu filed the underlying complaint. It’s an old complaint on which the Star Tribune originally reported over a year ago in a December 2023 story:
The complaint by Painter and Hsu lists incidents at the U that the pair believe could warrant investigation, some of which predate the latest conflict in the Middle East. Among other instances, the complaint raises concerns about a Jewish faculty member who was “accosted” while filming what the pair described as a “pro-Hamas rally” and concerns that a department was “soliciting rabidly antisemitic external reviewers” in the tenure process. The complaint also referenced an older incident in which a Jewish faculty member had been investigated after distributing posters that depicted the Prophet Muhammad disapproving of a terror attack years ago.
The complaint didn’t name the faculty members involved.
The pair also took issue with the U’s decision to allow faculty members to post pro-Palestinian statements on university websites. In an email to interim President Jeff Ettinger and other university leaders, Painter cited as an example a statement written by faculty in the Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies department.
In a more than 1,000-word statement issued in October, faculty members in the department wrote that they stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and “assert that Israel’s response is not self-defense.” They wrote that they reaffirm support for a boycott and sanctions and asked others to join their call for an end to the siege.
The statement was updated on Nov. 20 to specify that it “was written collectively by the tenured core faculty of the Department of Gender Women and Sexuality Studies. This statement does not reflect the position of the University of Minnesota.”
In an interview Monday, Painter said he believes that faculty members should be free to express their opinions as individuals, but not on university websites, where they could have a chilling effect on students. He noted that the university receives public funding and said he felt the statement omitted some atrocities committed by Hamas.
I have repeatedly mocked Professor Painter in posts with headings on a variation of “A Painter passing through.” I have not found him to be a reliable narrator, but his complaint draws on matters of public record that should have been taken at face value and investigated long ago. It is unclear whether the current investigation involves additional complaints.
This is the statement that the university’s public affairs office forwarded to me in response to my request Tuesday morning:
The University received notice of this investigation from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Monday afternoon and will be reviewing the details in the days ahead. We are confident in our approach to combating hate and bias on our campus and will fully cooperate with this investigation. The University continues to stand firmly against antisemitism. We have and will continue to respond promptly and fully to any reports of harassment, intimidation, or bias against Jewish students — or any other members of our University community — in accordance with our University values, our own policies, and our responsibility under the law.
That the university has nothing more specific to say in response to the Painter/Hsu complaint at this time suggests to me that its statement should not be taken at face value.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.