On Christmas Eve, George Ciccariello-Maher, a professor at Drexel University whose excellent work on Venezuela and political theory you may know, tweeted, “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.” The next day, he followed up with this: “To clarify: when the whites were massacre during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.” After denouncing the tweets, the university said, “The University is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail.”

Folks, we’ve been here before. Over the years, it has become a pillar of our organizing around here that no one should be punished by his or her employer for political speech off the job. This is a cornerstone of academic freedom, but many of us believe it should be extended to all forms of employment.

I’ve been absolutely consistent on this principle over the years, even when it has involved employees expressing views I find abhorrent. I defended Glenn Reynolds, a right-wing professor at the University of Tennessee Law School, against calls that he be fired after he tweeted that car drivers should “run down” protesters blocking traffic in Charlotte, North Carolina over a fatal police shooting there. I defended a nurse—also in Philadelphia, as it happens—who was fired for posting awful racist comments on her Facebook page. (I am not equating or comparing George’s tweets with those of Reynolds or the FB posts of that nurse: I’m merely noting my bona fides here, sadly, because I have to.) The principle, as I say, is simple: no one should be fired—and suffer all the consequences of what that means in a country like the US—for their political speech, particularly when it’s off the job.

From long experience, I know there will be an impulse to forget, ignore, or temporarily suspend this principle in order to get into a long debate about the substance of George’s tweet, to assess whether he crossed a line or not. I know there will be an impulse to have a long debate about how far our principles of tolerance should extend, with a whole array of hypotheticals marshaled at either end to test the limits of our principles. Or perhaps we’ll have a long debate about the problems with the left’s focus on race and whiteness.

From long experience, I ask you to resist that impulse and to recognize that there really are extraordinarily powerful forces arrayed now against George, newly empowered by the results of this election. (Breitbart’s site, for example, is all over this one.) I often point out that my posts are not meant to organize us politically, that they are places and threads to explore larger issues. This is not one of those posts. This is a simple call to arms, a plea for clarity, a request (polite, I hope) that we exercise some judgment here, and recognize that this particular controversy is not going to be the occasion of a law school seminar or a late-night Jacobin bull session.

There’s one task here, and that is to defend George. What that means will become clear in the coming days. For now, share this news far and wide.

Updated (12:30 pm)

You can contact the following leaders of Drexel at these addresses below. Be polite, be civil, and point out that the American Association of University Professors is very clear that extramural political speech ought to be protected.

Drexel’s President John Anderson Fry: jaf@drexel.edu

Drexel Provost M. Brian Blake: mbrian.blake@drexel.edu [and/or try this one: mb3545@drexel.edu]

Drexel Media Relations Executive Director Niki Gianakaris: ngianakaris@drexel.edu

Updated (4:30 pm)

As I mentioned above, I have no desire or intention of getting into a debate about the content of George’s tweets. It’s irrelevant in my experience. But George posted this statement about what he was doing, and I think it’s worth passing on for everyone to read (thanks to John Protevi for posting it in the comments below):