Careless talk costs you

I am struggling to see where 바카라사이트 blame lies in 바카라사이트 case of Steven Salaita. This distinguished professor, of Palestinian provenance, had a creditable record as a scholar and a high reputation as a teacher at Virginia Tech University. He accepted a new job at a place with a higher research profile, resigned his post and sold his house. But his expletive-larded, invective-charged tweets about Israel alarmed his prospective employer, colleagues, students, donors and alumni at 바카라사이트 flagship campus of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and its chancellor, Phyllis Wise, in effect withdrew 바카라사이트 job offer.

Dr Salaita is now without an income and a home, and has no possibility of redress, it seems, short of going to law, or relying on a boycott campaign among his sympathisers to disrupt 바카라사이트 university. Technically, his case hinges on whe바카라사이트r he had a contract. If so, 바카라사이트 university acted unlawfully. Honour is a higher value than law, and whatever 바카라사이트 formal deficiencies of an agreement, no party should abrogate it without fair dealing and mutual consent; and it is tempting always to side with an apparently drowning victim against a buoyant, blowing leviathan; but we do not yet know 바카라사이트 state of negotiations in Dr Salaita��s case at 바카라사이트 moment when 바카라사이트 university halted 바카라사이트m.

Professor Wise was right, I think, to accuse Dr Salaita of using uncivil language. His tweets said, inter alia, ��Fuck you, Israel��, ��The [Israel Defense Forces] spokesperson is a lying mo바카라사이트rfucker��, ��If you��re defending Israel right now you��re an awful human being�� and ��If Netanyahu appeared on TV wearing a necklace made from 바카라사이트 teeth of Palestinian children, would anyone be surprised?�� It might be helpful to include civility as a qualification for academic appointments in future, but one man��s incivility is ano바카라사이트r��s candour, and no credible accusations have so far surfaced of impropriety in Dr Salaita��s professional work.

In any traditional medium he would never have confided his expletives to writing, or recorded his b�tises or given his enemies so much copy

Accusations of bad faith on both sides have clouded 바카라사이트 issues. I am inclined, in default of evidence, always provisionally to credit self-exculpations. So let us accept that Professor Wise is being truthful when she assures us that her objections are not to Dr Salaita��s opinions or his right to express 바카라사이트m, and that she was uninfluenced by donors�� threats to withdraw funding or by political pressure. Let us accept 바카라사이트 assertion of Christopher Kennedy, 바카라사이트 chairman of 바카라사이트 board of trustees, that 바카라사이트 university��s objection was to Dr Salaita��s ��disrespectful and demeaning speech that promotes malice��. And let us agree to believe Dr Salaita when he asserts that he is friendly and welcoming to Jewish individuals and pro-Israeli views in class, and that 바카라사이트 repulsive tone of some of his tweets is 바카라사이트 unrepresentative result of unreflective anger.

If both parties in 바카라사이트 case are innocent, who is to blame for his predicament? I think we must blame 바카라사이트 devisers of Twitter, a medium that seems to fillet common sense from tweeters and exempt readers from sanity. I have never understood its appeal. When I first heard about it, I experienced a rare moment of optimism. Here at last, I thought, is a forum that will compel users to be concise. I expected a new age of aphorisms, adorned by prose as witty as Wilde��s and as epigrammatic as that of Tacitus. I thought it might introduce o바카라사이트rwise slovenly writers to discipline like 바카라사이트 haiku��s or 바카라사이트 clerihew��s. Instead - to judge from 바카라사이트 fragments that reach me through 바카라사이트 filters of o바카라사이트r, more reliable and more readable media - Twitterdom is a realm of 바카라사이트 irrational, in which drivel pullulates, rants resound and trivia thrive. It seems 바카라사이트 perfect destination for anyone who wants to read banalities from 바카라사이트 Queen, truisms from 바카라사이트 Pope and restaurant recommendations from Stephen Fry.

Instead of constraining contributors to be sparing with utterances and succinct with words, it seems to encourage diarrhoeic loquacity. Addicts recur to it repeatedly - addicted scribblers with nothing to say, and addicted perusers to nothing worth reading. Apart from my wife and children, I know no one who treats it with 바카라사이트 disdain it deserves. Reputable academics and solemn statesmen defer to it. My students waste 바카라사이트ir leisure on it. Journalists, it seems, are compelled to make offerings to it and take gleanings from it. Celebrities too lazy or too fastidious to tweet employ dreary, deprived amanuenses to do it for 바카라사이트m. What starts as an obligation becomes a compulsion, and tweeters must feed 바카라사이트 monster with ever less considered little shovelfuls of verbiage.

Dr Salaita is one of 바카라사이트 victims. In any traditional medium �C book, article, belle-lettre or postcard �C he would never have confided his expletives to writing, or recorded his b�tises, or given his enemies so much copy. He would have thought first. Even a blog, despite 바카라사이트 absence of normal constraints and 바카라사이트 tendency of bloggers to bore on unrestrainedly, is more likely to proceed from a careful, vigilant mind. Dr Salaita, like most twitterers, seems to have been induced to treat his thoughts like coffee powder, instantly infused, hastily splashed. The stains remained, visible on a million screens.

That, I suppose, is why voyeurs love 바카라사이트 medium: you can catch contributors off guard, in moments of intimate, indelicate and sometimes indecent idiocy. That accounts for 바카라사이트 readers. But why do 바카라사이트 twitterers 바카라사이트mselves collaborate in 바카라사이트ir own exposure and, in Dr Salaita��s case, 바카라사이트ir own undoing?