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
January 29, 2019

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

He delivered speeches triggered by MLK-Jr. Day inter alia at Penn State (where he pushed “activism”) and
at New York City’s People’s Forum [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsPv4i7B6d4] (where he themed
his transnational vision on “existence is resistance” [https://www.memri.org/tv/nyc-palestine-protest-
anti-zionist-cnn-marc-lamont-hill-baruch-college/transcript]; the latter was organized by Nancy Monsour
who, herself, organized a “Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Zionist, Anti-CNN Protest in NYC in Support of Fired CNN
Contributor Marc Lamont Hill” [https://www.memri.org/tv/nyc-palestine-protest-anti-zionist-cnn-marc-
lamont-hill-baruch-college/transcript]. During this 15-minute clip, he led a “F*** CNN” chant [@ 2:30] as
he advocated global organization of a constituency (comprised of multiple underclasses) to redress
present-day denial of freedom, justice and equality. He claimed [1]—Mumia is a political prisoner; [2]—
Gaza is an open-air prison that should be emptied; [3]—Palestinian Arab refugees are not yet integrated
into Israeli society; and [4]—Israeli soldiers are anti-Arab racists and, thus, the entire Israeli police force
should be dismantled. Because the world is imperfect, work remains unfinished and, thus, activism must
come from an individual’s core if it is to be more than transactional. This latter point represents a new
twist on what he advocates, for it’s no longer “I’ll support your cause (say, ‘women’s rights’ or ‘BLM’) if
you support my cause (say, ‘no borders’ or ‘BDS’); rather, people must now buy into the bases for each
set of goals, no matter their illogic, falsity or lack of linkage with any other potential agenda-item.

I coauthored two published essays that explored how Marc Lamont Hill hides behind speech-freedom
[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/temple_u_hides_behind_constitution_to_defend_an
tisemitic_marc_lamont_hill_comments.html] and tenure-claims [https://www.jns.org/opinion/memo-
to-anarchist-hill-tenure-does-not-prevent-temple-university-from-firing-you/] as he continually attempts
to undermine American law-and-order and promulgate violence against Israel, all the while prompting
liberals to swallow Islamic slavery and gay-bashing. These are thematic within another coauthored essay
“The post-intersectionality Democratic Party” which, candidly, this Temple experience had provoked
[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_postintersectionality_democratic_party.html];
noted is the fact that, days later, this essay has received (unprovoked, front-page) “viral” dissemination
[https://qwiket.com/context/channel/qwiket/topic/the-post-intersectionality-democratic-party].

It may be recalled that, after The Temple News editorialized “Support [for] Temple’s Jewish community”
[https://temple-news.com/support-temple-jewish-community/], it reacted to a critical statement by the
Board Chairperson [https://temple-news.com/board-chairman-getting-involved-in-the-marc-lamont-hill-
scandal-complicated-it-for-temple-experts-say/] by claiming—without addressing his violence-support—
”Right or wrong: Marc Lamont Hill should stay” [https://temple-news.com/support-all-free-speech/]. And
his post-Board “condemnation” assertions are immutable [https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/what-
you-cant-say-about-israel-with-marc-lamont-hill/?fbclid=IwAR316dofUxIPar4opOeBpZLhKtGkV38Du-
9cHOn9pfSCR6kU235kEMj-t00]. Throughout, he has failed to retract any of his pro-violence rhetoric.

1
He hosted a panel-discussion of “King and Gender Politics” at “Uncle Bobbie's,” comprising its “Second
Annual Radical MLK Day symposium,” along with Dr. Imani Perry, Mychal Denzel Smith, Tarana Burke, and
Dr. Salamishah Tillet [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWXbVQF9mi0]. The violence undertone was
couched within a “gender inequality” speech that averred MLK-Jr. actually had been a radical without
quoting anything he had ever said or written in support of this brand of historical revisionism. Thus,
provided for anyone who would want to regurgitate trite/banal college-rhetoric that has—for decades—
been devoid of meaningful content, are quote-snippets from this hourlong clip of what had transpired:

charismatic leadership born of recruitment by women and, noting anti-Vietnam, was

actually radical; legacy necessitates repositioning MLK-Jr. by including transgenders
today...after noting lineage via black-power and BLM movements

political philosopher mischaracterized via whitewash undermines need to examine true

selves; yet, recognize he was flawed because he didn't voice full-throated radicalism

change entails helping people who are to be recruited to recognize they also have flaws
that need to be remedied by adhering to compassionate radicalism

backlash is dangerous in academe, albeit predictable; this reinforcement of hierarchies

[e.g., police power hurting black men, evicting them from homes] adversely affects
efficacy [linked with oppression of trans-type second-class citizenship, even if cis-men feel
they're unaffected]

dependence upon white mainstream media impedes organizing, such as when people
falsely claim conflict between MLK and Malcolm; critique [including of SNCC] undermines
quality development of self

Watts occurred due to lack of recognition of police brutality; it's hard work to expose
prejudice, manifest when MLK's depression due to his devoting life to struggle

pull out lessons beyond nonviolence; King ensured cameras captured bridge-event due to
Diane Nash's input; white supremacy prevented focus on voices supporting King to be
noted

healing must courageously be promoted within movement/recruitment; privileged must

sacrifice for others to succeed

This is why it is vital that this vulgar anarchist be fired, for he does not portray a positive campus image;
this is why the prior nine letters have been uploaded onto the Internet and provided in Microsoft WORD
as attachments to a separate set of e-mails to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board of Trustees.

It is anticipated that, tomorrow, a follow-up article will emerge in The Temple News and, thus, it will be
dutifully circulated and annotated along with others that have been excerpted in these letters; the reader
may confirm this has been accomplished by noting the results of a search for all such related articles
[https://temple-news.com/?s=long++form+palestine]. Rumor has it that this piece will focus upon the
potential fiscal-impact of this controversy, although it will be desirable to note offsetting-declarations;
specifically, will people go on-the-record claiming they will donate more/less due to Hill’s status.

2
This was the #1 issue among the aggregated “Top 10 news stories of 2018” compiled by The Temple News
[https://temple-news.com/top-10-news-stories-of-2018/]; this is how they were summarized {unedited}:

Media studies and production and urban studies professor Marc Lamont Hill caused
controversy across the country when he used the phrase “from the river to the sea” in
an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian speech at the United Nations on Nov. 28. Many Jewish
advocacy groups and scholars said Hill was anti-Semitic and calling for the destruction of
the state of Israel. This prompted CNN to fire him the next day from his commentator
position. Pro-Israel groups also called for Temple to cut ties with Hill, who is the first
endowed Klein College Steve Charles Chair in Media, Cities and Solutions. Palestinian
liberation groups, including the Temple Students for Justice in Palestine, defended Hill,
who is a longtime social justice advocate for the Palestinian cause, and hosted
and supported him at a protest on Main Campus on Dec. 6.

The Temple News published an in-depth analysis of the controversy, including student
and faculty reactions, the history behind the “river to the sea” phrase and the university’s
response to Hill’s comments, which are protected as free speech under Temple’s faculty
contract.

President Richard Englert sent out a statement to the Temple community on Nov. 30,
expressing Hill has academic freedom and the university condemns hate speech.
However, the university was put in a tough position when Board of Trustees Chairman
Patrick O’Connor made comments to the Inquirer the same day, calling Hill’s remarks
“lamentable” and “disgusting.” O’Connor has now said the Hill controversy caused
“immeasurable” damage to the university’s donations, and the Board issued a unanimous
condemnation of Hill’s remarks.

Noted in this laundered narrative is the absence of any reference to the specific reason why he should be
fired forthwith, to wit, that he has repeatedly fomented violence; also noted is the absence of any type
of correction to the long-form analysis [https://longform.temple-news.com/temple-to-investigate-if-it-
will-reprimand-marc-lamont-hill/], despite this physician’s having provided direct written feedback to two
Temple News journalists @ the terminus of the pro-Hill march (@ Broad & Columbia - Cecil B. Moore).

Illustrative of how this issue has become (inter-)nationalized is not only the aforementioned quotations
from essays (such as that of Caroline Glick, from the Jerusalem Post), but also this hyperlinked analysis:
“Marc Lamont Hill: ‘I had tons of support.’ When it comes to anti-Israel faculty, he's not wrong”
[https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11799]. This essay examines some manifestations of Jew-hatred on
multiple college campuses, noting this website had previously explored the immediate impact thereof:
“Temple Board of Trustees Chairman Patrick O’Connor is the latest key stakeholder to speak out, claiming
that the comment caused the school ‘immeasurable’ damage, including a possible loss in donations”
[https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11667]. Meanwhile, Hill claims that “Prominent Progressives
Secretly Share Views Endorsing Palestinian Violence” [https://freebeacon.com/politics/marc-lamont-hill-
prominent-progressives-secretly-share-views-endorsing-palestinian-violence/]; and he stands by his anti-
Israel comment [https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/25/marc-lamont-hill-stands-by-his-anti-israel-
comment-claims-many-prominent-progressive-dems-secretly-agree-717507]. Thus far, this “immovable
object” has stood firm against an “irresistible force,” although the Board of Trustees has yet to confront
the fact that he violated his contract when inter alia he advocated violence (as detailed in prior letters).