One of the most sacredly held tenets of academic freedom is the duty of academics to vigorously disagree and critique one another’s work. But when Hofstra University professor Richard Himelfarb made an innocuous comment criticizing his colleague’s course proposals in a faculty meeting, he found himself hauled before Hofstra University’s Harassment Review Board.
The scenario unfolded during a faculty meeting held on November 3 of last year. Professor Santiago Slabodsky is the chair of the Jewish Studies program at Hofstra. During the meeting, Slabodsky proposed creating two new courses in Jewish Studies. Professor Himelfarb, a professor of political science at the institution, was critical of his colleague’s “rambling, dissembling explanation” and was concerned that the proposed courses did not contain sufficient Jewish content. Himmelfarb commented that Slabodsky’s proposal was incoherent and resembled “word salad.”
If one assumes that this minor disagreement among colleagues would end at the faculty conference table, they would prove themselves ignorant of the sorry present state of academia. Instead of graciously accepting his colleague’s critique, Slabodsky filed a harassment complaint against Himelfarb claiming that the “word salad” accusation was discriminatory against Slabodsky’s accent, native language, and Latino identity.
From there, the situation only escalated.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), an organization committed to defending free speech in academia and society, describes what happened next:
On April 27, 2026, Vice President of Human Resources Denise Cunningham
informed Himelfarb that Slabodsky requested an informal resolution to the complaint and that Himelfarb apologize to the entire faculty. Himelfarb accepted and sent Cunningham a draft apology on April 29. On May 8, Cunningham informed Himelfarb that Slabodsky had withdrawn his request for an informal resolution and the matter would be referred to the University Harassment Review Board. 7 On May 28, Cunningham notified Himelfarb that he would need to attend a hearing, which will be scheduled in the coming weeks.
At this point, FIRE stepped in to defend Himelfarb from being hauled before a Kafkaesque kangaroo court.
In a letter to Hofstra Vice President of Human Resources Denise Cunningham, FIRE succinctly and eloquently made the case that Himelfarb’s critique of Slabodsky is very clearly protected speech under the First Amendment and the widely recognized principles of academic freedom.
FIRE wrote, “Indeed, courts have established that free speech is the lifeblood of academic
freedom, which is ‘a special concern of the First Amendment.’ Himelfarb’s remark that Slabodsky’s proposals were ‘word salad’ is clearly speech related to teaching and thus protected. His remark was made at a college faculty meeting. Discussing proposed courses and curriculum is squarely part of faculty members’ teaching, especially on such occasions.”
“Himelfarb’s ‘word salad’ remark is nothing more than a subjectively offensive comment,
which is protected by the First Amendment,” FIRE’s letter continued. “Just because Slabodsky was hurt or felt disparaged by the ‘word salad’ remark does not make it punishable harassment under federal law or Hofstra’s own policy.”
Astoundingly, FIRE’s letter only caused Slabodsky and the Hofstra administration to double down on their attempts to punish Himelfarb.
As FIRE documents in a second letter to Hofstra, “On June 30, Vice President for Human Resources Denise Cunningham notified Himelfarb that Professor Santiago Slabodsky had filed another complaint against Himelfarb accusing him of ‘public retaliation’ because Himelfarb contacted an ‘external organization,’ likely FIRE, that disseminated information about the case through several media outlets, ‘leading to the publication of articles that contain misleading information and half-truths.’ The complaint accuses Himelfarb of trying to ‘intimidate’ Slabodsky by generating public pressure on Slabodsky.”
This second charge of “intimidation,” FIRE wrote, “exacerbates the rights violations occurring at Hofstra… It is even more egregious that Hofstra’s response to criticism of its patently indefensible actions against Himelfarb has been to charge Himelfarb with ‘retaliation,’ not for taking any action against Slabodsky, but simply for telling other people about Hofstra’s injustice.”
“Hofstra, it seems, is not content simply to be a place that ignores its own academic freedom policies and weaponizes its discrimination policies against academic criticism; it is also a place where speaking up about such violations results in punishment,” FIRE concludes.
As of this writing, Hofstra has not backed down on its bogus charges against Professor Richard Himelfarb or responded to FIRE’s letters documenting the institution’s utter disregard for the principles of academic freedom and integrity.
The power dynamics on display in this case are also telling. Slabodsky is, after all, the chair of a program at Hofstra, while Himelfarb is merely a professor. It is deeply disturbing that an academic chair’s response to a mild insult from a colleague is to summon the full force of the university HR department to seek retribution.
For all his accusations that Himelfarb’s use of the phrase “word salad” constituted ethnic discrimination, Slabodsky’s own faculty biography page pokes fun at his Latin American heritage.
“In his free time, as a stereotypical Latin American, he dedicates his time to soccer (but he calls it fútbol). He plays it, he watches it, and he talks about it…a lot!” states his bio. “He is very approachable and always welcomes chats with students.” Just be very careful what you say, or you too might be cited for harassment.