Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

 Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152
December 12, 2018

To: Patrick J. O’Connor, Esq., Chair, Temple University Board of Trustees – Plus Trustees
Re: Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. [D.O.B. 12/17/1978]
Cc: {Internet}

I continue to seek the prompt “discharge” of this anti-Jew, racist-anarchist, as detailed on 12/9/2018
[https://tinyurl.com/y6uer8u8] along with Exhibit 3 [https://tinyurl.com/y6ujgqqw] and 12/11/2018
[https://tinyurl.com/yahfe2bm]; this letter is redirected from the General Counsel (who, by information
and belief, composed the Statement) to yourselves (who approved the finalized version thereof). Again,
this reflects an effort to be both comprehensive and analytical when projecting future actions; thus,
after recapitulation of the Executive Summary and provision of an Overview, your Statement is parsed
and Commentary derivative of articles generated by this unprecedented challenge is candidly articulated.

As opposed to its predecessors, this letter is remitted so as to invite receipt of a reply and, as per the
opening ‘graph of the first letter, it would be desirable were you to invite ZOA-leadership to a meeting
(including interested trustees) during which these issues can be hashed-out calmly. You have been given
a complete database and, thus, you are invited to supplement it (for broad distribution) after having
consulted with his Dean. Hill knew exactly what he was doing [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9v-
dLRzMH0&fbclid=IwAR2Ga830Y6A4ETThYkOJhTt4-hXCkn_FIs0okcxK5gsX1wJDT6s_pSAnUSA]; it seems
you have decided not to punish him (nor even to elaborate on the “condemnation” in your statement).
It’s recognized that the issue is not resolved, but it is desirable to identify the underlying forces at-play.

Prior Executive Summary – Which Remains Germane

Hill’s 11/28/2018 speech triggered turmoil with local/national implications, for he violated the four
faculty-conduct criteria that supersede any claim of “academic-freedom” and satisfied the four legal
criteria that shed “speech-freedom” defense by showing moral turpitude when fomenting violence;
these are applicable regardless of whether an individual is tenured and regardless of the purported
credibility of the cause for which he/she is advocating. A “compromise” cannot be effectuated, for the
only method to protect defenseless students (of all ages) from his input is to ensure he has no classroom
contact (notwithstanding off-campus conduct); his reprehensible ideology is so thoroughly engrained—
particularly when videos are scrutinized—that the only reasonable remedy is to discharge him and then
to permit him to reapply after he has demonstrated a pattern of [1]—spreading accurate information,
[2]—showing restraint; [3]—viewing contrary postures without scorn; and [4]—providing an explicit
disclaimer which identifies him as speaking only for himself rather than for Temple. Hill is a Jew-hating
anarchist—a radical-racist rabble-rouser—who harbors values that neither reflect Temple’s reputation
nor the ethics of the local/regional/statewide/national community. After he has been promptly FIRED,
the Board should investigate how he was hired without a meaningful background-check, given tenure
and a salary, and let-loose without evidence that oversight of his activities was effectuated by his Dean.

1
 Overview

Your Statement lacks both credibility and relevance, both regarding its database and conclusions; indeed,
you evaded citing his explicit rejection of nonviolence (MLK-Jr./Gandhi) and you conjured the claim that
Hill “rejected anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence.” Furthermore, you failed to cite any context to
what he’d said, as per multiple well-documented analyses conveyed directly to you inter alia by myself;
therefore, one wonders whether he was hired by Temple, or whether he functions as Temple’s superior.

Your decision must be addressed by noting the potential to invoke Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect
Jewish students from anti-Jewish and anti-Israel harassment and discrimination—as per by the ZOA [https
://zoa.org/2018/09/10378469-zoas-title-vi-case-against-rutgers-reopened-by-us-civil-rights-office/ and
https://www.jns.org/opinion/us-governments-important-new-stand-against-campus-anti-semitism/] at
Rutgers and the University of California, Irvine]—regardless of claims this be a last-minute deployment
[https://zoa.org/2018/11/10379336-read-what-the-new-jersey-jewish-news-wouldnt-publish/]; this is a
situation that establishes your liability if Hill has now placed your student/faculty population at-risk.

You admitted he spoke for himself and not for Temple, but you failed to recognize he violated the need
for him to disclaim this posture—both at the U.N. and on multiple other occasions—and you failed to be
cognizant of the fact that his subsequent apologia rescinded not one phrase from what he had uttered,
let alone acknowledged error. “People are entitled to their opinions but not their facts,” but you evaded
discussing the fact that he had created assertions to befit his radical, terroristic conclusions, behavior
that sinks below what an academic institution should expect of its faculty; his extremism and intolerance
were also both well-demonstrated and germane, but you failed to even raise these on-point criteria.
Because he has both violated the four key-criteria in the TAUP contract and uttered actionable speech,
condemning his remarks is insufficient, absent “conflict-resolution” efforts as his Chair so-designates.

Your decision to ignore the gravamen of what he has said was, perhaps, presaged by a puff-piece in the
current issue of “Temple Today” praising his having established “Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee and Books”) in
“the old Germantown neighborhood” [https://news.temple.edu/sites/news/files/Publications/Temple-
Magazine/2018/tm_fall18_1_complete_issue.pdf, page 41]. You appear to have invested in his mien.

His recent Minnesota speech recapitulates much of what was disseminated; he unambiguously advocated
“resistance” congruent with BLM-induced violence, notably when summarizing the 45-minute event to
sustained applause [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFIIWqcWsPU&t=347s&fbclid=IwAR0zU614T-
d70VbgY2JvI0Ng7gkeTvFrxHFxR0YmvAzGwxW213XxdZ1CI_M @ minutes 0-14, 26-34, 40-45]. {Ironically,
the next video in this series captures Brigitte Gabriel’s epic answer to the perennial claim of those who
unjustifiably label the ZOA as promoting “Islamophobia” for, alas, most Muslims aren’t “peaceful”
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_RAbOJcu0].} To summarize the dynamics from the perspective
of an oncologist, Hill’s double-whammy constitutes both an “initiator” (baseline antipathy toward Israel)
and a “promoter” (eschewing non-violent action) of carcinogenesis; simply put, Hill is a malignancy who
must be excised from the Temple community, lest he metastasize loco-regionally and systemically.

We recognize you perhaps view yourself as a quasi-public entity but, because you only receive ~15% of
your budget from the Commonwealth, you actually are “private” (as opposed to Penn State University);
therefore, you should continue to probe the rhetoric for which you are now wittingly providing a platform.
After the U.N. endorsed the call by Hamas to murder Jews and to seek Israel’s destruction, you now say
it’s “OK” for your faculty to call for murdering Jews and to seek Israel’s destruction. This is dangerous
and frightening, recalling all the historical events of both the past millennia and the most recent century.

2
Your decision [“Temple Board of Trustees unanimously condemned Marc Lamont Hill’s UN speech”]
instantly became national news [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/12/cnn-fired-him-
speech-some-deemed-anti-semitic-his-university-wont-punish-him/ & http://news.world.edu/?p=32051
& https://forward.com/fast-forward/415903/marc-lamont-hill-of-river-to-the-sea-wont-be-punished-by
-temple-university/ & http://www2.philly.com/news/marc-lamont-hill-temple-trustees-20181211.html
& https://www.foxnews.com/us/temple-university-condemns-but-does-not-punish-marc-lamont-hill-
over-alleged-anti-semitic-comments.amp?fbclid=IwAR0wmXoARoF56eFk2jzDW792cHDwgwTgA2K8G6
dueAU5XaEg1N1MEeN9fnI]; the Temple News published the text of your announcement without
addressing the database which had been given to two of its reporters where last week’s pro-Hill march
(following the rally) terminated [@ the Barnes & Noble @ Broad St. & Cecil B. Moore (Columbia) Ave.]
[https://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/Temple-University-students-rally-in-
support-of-Marc-Lamont-Hill.shtml]. Recognized was not having punished him for advocating violence.

Statement Parsed

Your Statement Condemning Hill’s U.N. Speech is riddled with errors and oversights, as noted infra
[https://temple-news.com/temple-board-of-trustees-unanimously-condemn-marc-lamont-hills-un-
speech/?fbclid=IwAR1hUwPsSMdC55VMF9rGOq9r2ZDs9i8IG0ZDaOGgmyuXNEDWW5BObmxJjaI]:

Statement Condemning the Remarks of Professor Marc Lamont Hill

Professor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech on November 28th at the United Nations
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. That speech included a
statement that many regard as promoting violence, the phrase “from the river to the sea,”
which has been used by anti-Israel terror groups and widely perceived as language that
threatens the existence of the State of Israel. Professor Hill’s remarks have been broadly
criticized as, among other things, “virulent anti-Semitism” and “hate speech,” and have
ignited a public furor.

In giving this speech outside of his role as a teacher and researcher at Temple, Professor
Hill was not speaking on behalf of or representing the University. We recognize that
Professor Hill’s comments are his own, that his speech as a private individual is entitled
to the same Constitutional protection of any other citizen, and that he has through
subsequent statements expressly rejected anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence.

Notwithstanding this controversy, as a public university Temple continues to support a

learning and work environment that is open to a wide diversity of thought, opinion and
dialogue by people of all backgrounds.

The members of the Board of Trustees of Temple University - Of The Commonwealth

System of Higher Education, in exercise of their own Constitutionally-protected right as
citizens to express their views, hereby state their disappointment, displeasure, and
disagreement with Professor Hill’s comments, and reaffirm in the strongest possible
terms the President’s condemnation of all anti-Semitic, racist or incendiary language, hate
speech, calls to violence, or the disparagement of any person or persons based on
religion, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation or identity.

3
This is why your “Condemning” Statement is worthy of being “Condemned.”

• Professor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech on November 28th at the United Nations
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

You ignore his comparable prior statements, which expressed comparable sentiments; it seems you only
reacted after CNN announced its contract with him had ended.

• That speech included a statement that many regard as promoting violence, the phrase “from
the river to the sea,” which has been used by anti-Israel terror groups and widely perceived
as language that threatens the existence of the State of Israel.

Focusing on this reprehensible assertion serves as a distraction from addressing his advocacy for violence.

• Professor Hill’s remarks have been broadly criticized as, among other things, “virulent anti-
Semitism” and “hate speech,” and have ignited a public furor.

You ignore the neon-lit focus of criticism in my letters, echoing sentiments of people and organizations
observing his deceitful anti-Israel/anti-Jew rhetoric (e.g., charging Israel had poisoned “Palestinian Water).

• In giving this speech outside of his role as a teacher and researcher at Temple, Professor Hill
was not speaking on behalf of or representing the University.

He failed to state he was only speaking for himself instead of for Temple, despite a contractual mandate
that he articulate this disclaimer.

• We recognize that Professor Hill’s comments are his own, that his speech as a private
individual is entitled to the same Constitutional protection of any other citizen, and that he
has through subsequent statements expressly rejected anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic
violence.

You cannot document this claim because it ain’t so; he never expressly rejected violence for, to the
contrary, he has endorsed violence perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs.

• Notwithstanding this controversy, as a public university Temple continues to support a

learning and work environment that is open to a wide diversity of thought, opinion and
dialogue by people of all backgrounds.

You cannot hide behind this truism if the Academic/Speech “Freedom” strays into violent exhortations.

• The members of the Board of Trustees of Temple University - Of The Commonwealth System
of Higher Education, in exercise of their own Constitutionally-protected right as citizens to
express their views, hereby state their disappointment, displeasure, and disagreement with
Professor Hill’s comments, and reaffirm in the strongest possible terms the President’s
condemnation of all anti-Semitic, racist or incendiary language, hate speech, calls to violence,
or the disparagement of any person or persons based on religion, nationality, race, gender,
sexual orientation or identity.

4
It’s remarkable that you must hide behind the First Amendment instead of issuing a forthright statement
that BOTH recognizes and condemns (in its text, not merely in the title) both his statements and the person
who had uttered them; furthermore, inasmuch as you have determined his having issued views contrary
to what the Board considers appropriate, you must invoke the TAUP-contract clause that mandates that
your employees not express views at-variance with those that define the institution within the community.

Commentary

It is somewhat reassuring that you told The Temple News that the university is still “evaluating” any
remedies to these situations, but did not elaborate on what these remedies could look like. You should
start with scrutinizing how his tenured contract was generated, absent input from his future colleagues;
other pursuits (including firing Hill) remain germane, as per the Executive Summary [vide supra].

It has been suggested that “controversial” Hill “is hanging onto his endowed and tenured professorship
… by a fraying thread” [http://conservativeangle.com/temple-university-cant-fire-controversial-marc-
lamont-hill-because-of-tenure/]. Key-precedents are of-interest. [1]—Temple didn’t condemn a professor
for anti-Semitism after having questioned the Holocaust, terming this as a “vigorous exchange of ideas”
[https://freebeacon.com/issues/temple-university-will-not-condemn-professor-in-anti-semitic-row/];
[2]—An on-campus attack on a Jewish student [“punched in the face and knocked down and called “baby-
killer, racist, Zionist pig” by individuals at the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) table that was part of
“Templefest,” an organizational exhibition on August 20, 2014”] prompted condemnation by 15 groups
[https://amchainitiative.org/12-groups-condemn-attack-on-jewish-student-at-temple-university/] and a
probe [http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Temple_probing_anti-Semitic_attack_on_student.html];
[3]—The University of Montana Western has a policy that allows expulsion for “mean” facial expressions
[https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/university-policy-allows-expulsion-for-mean-expressions/?
fbclid=IwAR3pulRTP8Vc1-NejdJr_yRjlqZFMEgmzxdnUdDkKAPrT5zTxISH3OSL8jk].

Although Progressives argue that attacking Hill will strengthen solidarity between Blacks and Palestinians,
this does not justify silencing critique [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-marc-lamont-hill-
palestine_us_5c0aa0dce4b0de79357c9f57?fbclid=IwAR0lJU7ASD3j_Bngc0QXiEYgMEDutoO2r5sLQdU5T
pfLTflgJOBSZOk830Q]; rather, it reflects the political “intersectionality” that enhances Hill’s threats.
Rather, take-to-heart, please, this take-home-message c/o the ZOA’s Philly-Director, Steve Feldman:

Marc Lamont Hill has a vast and well-documented history of comments that reflect his
support for violence against Jews going back at least to 2014. Yet, Temple University
officials hired him in 2017, giving him automatic tenure and an endowed chair.

This fact leads to only one of two possible conclusions regarding the process by which Hill
was hired by Temple: “Either Temple officials knew what Hill was all about on Jews and
Israel and did not care, OR, Temple officials did not care to know.”

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217111073144288&set=a.18484737669
15&type=3&theater

Hill has been silent [http://www2.philly.com/news/marc-lamont-hill-temple-trustees-20181211.html],

but he should be pressed to address publicly the points in the parsed-Statement, in these three letters,
and in his speeches on Black-Palestinian Solidarity (linked by baseless claims of “White Supremacy”)
[https://themacweekly.com/2018/11/el-kati-lecturer-discusses-black-palestinian-solidarity/].