This story raises the question of when pure anti-Semitism breaches the protection of academic freedom, or if it ever does.
Georgetown Law Center maintains an online “Scholarly Commons,” a portal where faculty members can post law journal articles, completed or in progress, and other papers and materials. Professor Lama Abu-Odeh, who teaches two courses at GULC on “conservative legal thought,” posted “working papers” to the portal with no academic citations, which presumably would be added if the papers ever develop into scholarly treatises. Their subject is what Abu-Odeh calls the “genocide in Gaza,” and her rhetoric frequently crosses into classic anti-Semite tropes
“Gaza Shoah: Zionism’s Efficacious Role as Ideological Supplement in the US,” for example, uses the familiar anti-Israel slur that it is “an apartheid state.” The paper also endorses “resistance to the Zionist project,” excusing Hamas, and even denies that Hamas terrorists raped Israelis during the October 7 terrorist attack. Another anti-Semitic trope that Professor Abud-Odeh embraces is the claim that Jews manipulate the American media and bribe U.S. politicians. “It is true that the American political class, Democrats and Republicans alike, is on AIPAC’s dole,” Abu-Odeh writes. “It is also true that legacy media is dominated by Zionist Jews.”
A more recent “working paper” posted by the professor to the “Commons” is “Gaza Shoah 11: The Frankenstein State of Israel.” It describes Israel as a “Frankenstein’s monster” with “a fascination with limbs.” Israel is determined to “dismant[le] Palestine into disparate territories.”
The Washington Free Beacon, D.C.’s conservative muck-raking publication, questioned Abu-Odeh about the papers. She defended her claim that Hamas terrorists did not commit rape on October 7, though that aspect of the attack has been confirmed by many sources, including the U.N., which is no ally of Israel.
“The charge that Hamas committed rapes has been refuted abundantly by reporters like Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate from the ‘Grayzone,’ Ali Abu Neimeh from ‘Electronic Intifada,’ and Briahna Joy Gray from ‘Rising,'” the professor told the Free Beacon. Those are all anti-Israel journalists. Blumenthal, for example, defended Hamas and has said that pro-Israel Senator John Fetterman is “basically a cyborg. He had a stroke. He needs machines to help him talk. And the Israel lobby has just basically hacked his brain.” His conspiracy theory continues, “They took Fetterman early on and made him into this Zionist monster.” The journalist relied upon as an authority by the GULC professor has also compared the Israel to Nazi Germany, and has repeatedly defended Hamas.
Then the professor told the Free Beacon’s reporter to “fuck off.” The papers in question were quickly taken down from the law school portal, but thanks to the Free Beacon, you can read them here and here.
To answer my own query, I don’t see how universities can punish faculty members even for this level of bigotry and anti-Semitism. Anti-male and anti-white rhetoric is rampant in the same institutions. The next question is whether institutions of higher learning will pay any price for hiring professors with the biases of Abu-Odeh. Ilya Shapiro, the Georgetown Law Center faculty member and administrator who was suspended by the school for daring to question President’s DEI approach to nominating Supreme Court Justices, described Abu-Odeh’s posts as “something a sophomore would write at two in the morning after drinking a bit too much” and “bad scholarship.” “I wouldn’t take a class from her,” he said.
Neither would I. Neither should anyone.
Ethics Alarms 
what was that quote again? ‘In order to have enough freedom of speech, it is necessary to have too much”. They really leave little doubt about their bias and the level of their foolishness.
“In order to have enough liberty, it is necessary to have too much”—Clarence Darrow.
What she writes is merely a jumping off point to refute her ideas through differing perspectives.
Jack writes:
“I don’t see how universities can punish faculty members even for this level of bigotry and anti-Semitism. Anti-male and anti-white rhetoric is rampant in the same institutions. The next question is whether institutions of higher learning will pay any price for hiring professors with the biases of Abu-Odeh.”
I agree with the first sentiment but the idea that institutions should pay a price for allowing her rhetoric is another. The institution should not suffer unless it bars those from refuting such a contentious thesis. The only person(s) who should suffer are those with bad ideas.
( I am not saying any particular ideas are bad here)
The goal of more speech is to allow a truth to emerge. If conservatism is to flourish then we must embrace diversity of speech and no work diligently to refute bad ideas. To simply ban what we think are bad/misleading ideas is the lazy approach and makes us no better than the totalitarians of the left who want to shut down any debate.
You don’t think universities should pay the price for hiring history-denying bigots? This asshole is just a step away from a Holocaust denier. Denying that Israeli women were raped isn’t an idea, it’s a lie. So is calling Israel an “apartheid state,” and the trope about Jews dominating US media.
Jack
What I am saying is that the history denying bigots and other assholes should be roundly ridiculed to the point that they are pariahs. If universities want to keep such pariahs on the payroll that is their business but when students stop attending their classes the university pays the price indirectly. Nothing stops any of us to call out institutions that employ bigots as bigots themselves We could also make the claim that students who take her classes are bigots as well but in neither case can we actually prove their bigotry.
I want these assholes to be individually ridiculed professionally which will mean that they will get paid for the perceived value of their work -which will be just shy of nothing.
Her words are only convincing if they are not met with facts and strong rhetoric. It is incumbent on the opposition to people like them to drown out their words with words of our own. Forcibly silencing them makes us no better than them.
Ah yes, Georgetown, which also hired Adnan Syed for its’ Prison Reform Initiative. He made famous by the podcast Serial. One can argue if he got a fair trial, or what constitutes reasonable doubt. But apparently nobody took a careful look at the evidence to see if he might actually be guilty of murder. And really, the bulk of the evidence is that he is. Who does their hiring?