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 13, 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}

In response to those who have requested a succinct summary of the data supporting Hill’s being fired,
this memo draws upon the prior three {hyperlink from https://tinyurl.com/yba88eua to ID everything}
to demonstrate that an ongoing Trustee-level probe of this issue must encompass both why an anti-Jew,
racist-anarchist has received a reprieve and the circumstances that led to his having been hired. Candidly,
the focus of these letters has been trained upon the former, having conveyed every resource available
while maintaining a posture that was both comprehensive and analytical when projecting future actions;
nothing articulated prior has been supplanted (including, in particular, the elucidation of what was wrong
with the Board Statement), but the Executive Summary serves structurally as the basis for this précis. Yet,
perhaps of greater institutional-functional import is probing how Hill, for example, was instantly tenured.

Again, inasmuch as Hill met with the author of an adversarial essay (Bart Blatstein), it shouldn’t be difficult
to conjure a meeting including the Temple leadership and those who have led the anti-Hill effort (ZOA).

One hopes that points were raised in their conversation from two opinion-pieces from the left-leaning
Jewish Exponent. One by its editor (already noted to be equivocal) emerged last week, simply concluding:
“Hill is no friend of Israel, but that fact alone shouldn’t lead to his dismissal. It should lead to his public
censure and disapprobation, which has already occurred in several op-eds and countless social media
posts. If Hill, however, engaged in violent speech, then he should face the full wrath of a policy that
seeks to protect an environment in which students can feel free to be who they are without the fear of
being physically attacked. Let the investigation proceed.” The other emerged as a letter-to-the-editor
that exhorted “[T]he same social justice warriors who hold high the ‘No Room for Hate’ posters to employ
the same campaigns in support of their Jewish brothers and sisters.” Where are those Jewish leaders
condemning [generally-admitted-to-be] hate-speech? The silence is deafening, perhaps because such
liberal “virtue-signaling” is actually hypocritical “vice-signaling” [https://nypost.com/2018/12/09/why-
no-hate-here-signs-are-actually-pretty-hateful/]. And the “investigation” is unequivocally complete, for
Hill’s rejection of nonviolence when exhorting for action necessarily yields encouragement of violence.

1
Illustrating why anti-Zionism and anti-Jew are synonymous operationally, is a just published essay that
rejects the anticipated-niceties of parlor-room, post-midnight, bull-session, armchair-debaters’ chit-chat:

…Anti-Zionism is ideologically unique in insisting that one state, and one state only,
doesn’t just have to change. It has to go. By a coincidence that its adherents insist is
entirely innocent, this happens to be the Jewish state, making anti-Zionists either the
most disingenuous of ideologues or the most obtuse. When then-CNN contributor Marc
Lamont Hill called last month for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” and later
claimed to be ignorant of what the slogan really meant, it was hard to tell in which
category he fell.

Does this make someone with Hill’s views an anti-Semite? It’s like asking whether a
person who believes in separate-but-equal must necessarily be a racist. In theory, no. In
reality, another story. The typical aim of the anti-Semite is legal or social discrimination
against some set of Jews. The explicit aim of the anti-Zionist is political or physical
dispossession.

What’s worse: To be denied membership in a country club because you’re Jewish, or

driven from your ancestral homeland and sovereign state for the same reason? If anti-
Semitism and anti-Zionism are meaningfully distinct (I think they are not), the human
consequences of the latter are direr….

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/opinion/anti-zionism-anti-semitism-israel.html

Hill violated the four faculty-conduct criteria that supersede any claim of “academic-freedom,” having
demonstrated a pattern of [1]—spreading inaccurate information, [2]—showing no restraint; [3]—
viewing contrary postures with scorn; and [4]—failing to provide an explicit disclaimer which identifies
him as speaking only for himself rather than for Temple. [These are quoted directly from the TAUH-
OK’ed Faculty Handbook, http://www.temple.edu/Senate/documents/ faculty_handbook.pdf].

Hill satisfied the four legal exceptions that shed any “speech-freedom” defense: [1]—fighting words;
[2]— true threat; [3]—defamation (libel and slander); and [4]—incitement to imminent lawless action.
[These are quoted directly from a legal-analysis c/o Lynne Lechter, https://www.americanthinker.com
/blog/2018/12/temple_u_hides_behind_constitution_to_defend_antisemitic_marc_lamont_hill.html].

Hill demonstrated moral turpitude, for his conduct shocks the public conscience and does not fall within
the moral standards held by the community. [This relates directly to the TAUH-OK’ed Faculty Handbook:
“…[U]niversity teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational
institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or
discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and
educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their
institution by their utterances.” http://www.temple.edu/Senate/documents/ faculty_handbook.pdf].

Hill harbors values that were condemned by Temple and, thus, 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.