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
February 12, 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: [https://tinyurl.com/y2dmrpgo]

This is focused upon an article that emerged overnight @ Temple News, although it must be noted initially
that that the (inter-)national implications of the temporary retention of a Jew-hating anarchist/racist
constantly are noted; not only does he spread his poison orally, regularly (e.g., yesterday’s summary of
but one of his stream-of-consciousness exhortations, collapsed-down from 15 pages to 4 pages), but he
also has a strong Instagram presence and loyal following [https://www.instagram.com/p/BJ69Qe5AJ1I/,
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJfoR4Kgsd1/, https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/ddpalestine/].
He joins Iggle Michael Bennett, supporting a cop-killer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGIxzUxLqFI.

He espouses Jew-hating Black-Nationalism that has tentacles throughout academe, politics and culture.

The Temple News article admixes two scandals, inevitably yielding incomplete probing of core-motivations
of the quoted-speakers, much like the controversy regarding Virginia Governor Northam has prioritized
focus on his Yearbook photo instead of condemning unambiguous endorsement of a CRIME: infanticide.
Indeed, the Temple Board’s reliance upon December’s non-condemnation “condemnation” conveys a
striking resemblance to yesterday’s non-apology “apology” of Rep. Omar for overt expression of her core
Jew-hatred; in both instances, it’s grossly insufficient to blame “rhetoric” while praising one’s self (and,
by extension, one’s organization) for having “learned” from the experience. In the instant case, the perp
continues to foment violence and, in the Congresswoman’s case, “Hours after apology, Ilhan Omar
retweeted a thread denouncing Pelosi and pushing Jewish money claims” by an individual whom she
praised: “Your courage can’t be matched. I am often in tears thinking about how you won’t be with us in
this fight and how I am going to miss your presence and courage. In solidarity my friend, in solidarity”
[https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/11/ilhan-omar-retweets-ady-barkan-thread-
denouncing-n/?fbclid=IwAR0Ox6XyWL8rwKlo2xZxgSjpDgIjyCxQSVGXXq4GXC9DZ1aGPTf4ZzTJiAM]. Thus,
the Zionist Organization of America advocates removal of “Anti-Semite Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from
Committee Assignments” by espousing a view comparable to that which prompted removal of Rep. King
from his committee assignments (for allegedly trying to normalize White Supremacy, a charge he denies).
[https://zoa.org/2019/02/10390488-zoa-remove-anti-semite-rep-ilhan-omar-d-mn-from-committee-
assignments-vote-on-rep-zeldins-antisemitism-bill/]. {BTW, it is beyond the scope of this update to probe
the scandals involving the newly-elected Congressional Muslims, but it has been opined that Omar/Tlaib
are expressing what has become mainstreamed among Dems, noting a parallel phenomenon regarding
the newly minted “Greening of America” idea (which encompasses far more than energy/environment)
[“The Only Difference Between Ocasio-Cortez And Nancy Pelosi Is Honesty” - http://thefederalist.com
/2019/02/12/difference-ocasio-cortez-nancy-pelosi-honesty/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_
campaign=957f867997-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_
term=0_cfcb868ceb-957f867997-83979165].} This is one maelstrom that cannot be linked to The Donald.

1
With these thoughts in-mind, it is necessary to tackle the grist of what emerged from Temple journalism.
Absent from this piece is any suggestion that donors will renege if he's fired, for all of them will either
[1]—cut-back commitments, or [2]—maintain donations. The silence is deafening, to those who care to
listen for it [http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-sound-of-silence-lyrics-simon-and-garfunkel.html]. In fact,
noted in the fine-print @ the end is this rogue’s gallery of people, who did not comment for this story:

• Marc Lamont Hill did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
• Jim Cawley, the vice president of Institutional Advancement, declined to comment for this story.
The Office of Institutional Advancement would be the agency tracking the financial impact of the
year’s past controversies, O’Connor said.
• Fox Interim Dean Ronald Anderson could not immediately be reached for this story.
• David Boardman, dean of the Klein College of Media and Communication declined to comment.
• A representative who oversees alumni giving at Klein, where Hill holds his endowed chair position,
declined to comment.
• A university staff member who oversees Fox’s alumni giving did not respond to a request for
comment.

[The on-line “long form” version does not afford space for reader-comment from Temple or the public.]

The following has just been published; it is being critiqued apace.

Certain people who have been mentioned therein are to be educated.
The necessity to "diagnose" Hill's gambit is, itself, surprisingly problematic.
The necessity to "treat" this challenging issue has grown during past 2 months.
We have increasingly recognized—and will convey—the national implications thereof.

https://longform.temple-news.com/controversy-university-temple-faces-unhappy-donors-in-wake-of-a-
contentious-year/

Controversy University: Temple faces unhappy donors in wake of a contentious year

Several high-level donors are rethinking their donations
due to national scandals clogging the narrative about Temple.

Instead of annotating the article, all quotes conveying the desire to “move on” have been distilled…and
dutifully refuted; just as the business school scandal lives-on, the tolerance for MLH festers unabated.

There was an expression of dismay that some felt shouldn’t preclude the ability of critics to maintain their
influence, even as some felt Temple didn’t handle the Hill controversy quickly enough; it is not credible,
noting the cacophony that has emerged, that the alumni association did not hear from any graduates
concerned about the Hill controversy (thereby showering doubt upon the credibility of Ms. Teresa Lundy,
a 2014 media studies and production alumna and a board member for Klein’s Alumni Association). And
others claimed Temple and Fox has gotten through those issues in the past and, here, the university was
decisive and immediately delivered a response. Trustees lamented that, ideally, Hill should have been
disciplined in some way by the university. But the Board does not have that power, O’Connor said and
Englert affirmed; MLH was absolved because he was not speaking as a university representative; rather,
the university’s faculty contract states professors are free from discipline as private citizens. They are
able to exercise First Amendment rights, prompting Temple to plan to hold public conversations about
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in April because of the desire to get to the root cause of this issue.

2
These key-concepts were distilled from the upcoming comprehensive excerpt; terse rejoinders are drawn
from the prior letters [references/citations available prn] noting, in particular, that the gravamen of this
controversy [fomenting violence, violating contract, poisoning community view of Temple U.] has been
deftly side-stepped BOTH by the author of this set of articles AND by those she has interviewed.

1. Expression of dismay is too subjective to warrant a specific response, except to note that
it obscures the need to ID underlying issues.

2. Intent to maintain influence reflects, on some level, allowing one’s self to be subject to
subtle extortion; people notably “vote with their feet.”

3. Claiming Temple didn’t handle the Hill controversy quickly enough ignores the prompt
comment of the Board Chair and, again, elides over probing the basis for the scandal;
Trustees have the capacity to initiate a probe into both the filthy Perp and the filthy Dean
who hired him (absent prescribed/expected Board-level oversight, noting prior quotes).

4. As noted, it is not credible, noting the cacophony that has emerged, that the alumni
association did not hear from any graduates concerned about the Hill controversy, and
it is possible the source of the claim is defending both MLH and the department headed
by the Dean who inexplicably hired him (and who remains notably mute for months).

5. Averring Temple and Fox has gotten through those issues in the past begs the question,
for the article recognizes the acute/subacute/chronic nature of these scandals.

6. Arguing the university was decisive and immediately delivered a response ignores its not
having addressed anything other than one phrase from the U.N. speech; the Trustees
have not confronted information that has easily been unearthed, of which they should
have been aware prior to when the Chair was created and filled (requiring investigation).

7. To lament that, ideally, Hill should have been disciplined in some way by the university
is NOT precluded by the faculty contract for, to the contrary, the Board has the power
[indeed, the responsibility] to protect the University’s reputation and image; at no time,
CONTRARY to claims to the contrary, could he be absolved “because he wasn’t speaking
as a university representative” when he FAILED to so-state explicitly during his remarks,
as mandated by the university’s faculty contract; thus, he is not free from discipline by
claiming he has consistently been speaking as a private citizen. Conjuring such a shroud
constitutes a too-transparent cover-up of profound proportions (for political purposes).

8. Invoking First Amendment as related to speech-/academic-freedom doesn’t allow for

fomenting violence (“You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater.”).

9. Planning to hold public conversations constitutes a method to avoid dealing with MLH.

10. The intent to get to the root cause (of Jew-hatred and the aegis under which it emerged)
is equally moot, for res ipsa loquitur; he consistently channels a half-century of rhetoric
c/o terrorists/radicals/revolutionaries and amplifies upon (while lying about) his embrace
of Farrakhan … as Black Supremacy morphed into a meme embracing “Black Palestinians.”
[https://mondoweiss.net/2018/12/activists-punished-supporting-palestinian/]

3
These key-points are derivative of all defensive assertions captured in the article:

Several alumni, however, remain committed to supporting the university while vocalizing
their dismay over the Fox School and/or Hill controversies, among others, like the
university’s dealings for a proposed on-campus stadium….

Other alumni, like Roxanne Zhilo, a 2011 strategic and organizational communications
alumna, believe it’s important for concerned Jewish alumni not to cut ties with the
university and maintain their influence. Zhilo has donated to on-campus Jewish
organizations, but not directly to Temple. “You should stand your ground, use your voice,
present your side, speak intelligently and plan strategically,” said Zhilo, the co-president
of Chabad at Temple’s Alumni Board. “Work to make things better for yourself in the
community. Don’t just abandon ship.”

Michael Adler, a 1998 Beasley School of Law alumnus, will also continue with his regular
donation plans to annually give to the university and law school. Since graduating, he’s
been involved with the Temple Alumni Association and the Temple Law Alumni
Association, which he led from 2009-11. Adler felt the university didn’t handle the Hill
controversy quickly enough, allowing it to brew in the media. “When one of us does
something bad…or if the university itself can’t get out from under an issue, that reflects
poorly on all of us as a family,” he added.

Teresa Lundy, a 2014 media studies and production alumna, said O’Connor’s statements
claiming alumni are incensed by the Hill controversy do not reflect what she’s seen as a
board member for Klein’s Alumni Association. To Lundy’s knowledge, the alumni
association did not hear from any graduates concerned about the Hill controversy, and
none expressed hesitation that they’d donate again. Lundy thinks the exact opposite of
O’Connor’s suggestion. “We’ve been getting new individuals who want to be a part of the
alumni chapter, so if anything, it’s been improving our attendance…From where I’m
sitting, the response was ideal,” she added. “…The feeling is, ‘Listen, Temple did the right
thing. How do we respond and how do we continue to support?’”

James Sanders, the president of the Fox School of Business Alumni Association, received
emails, phone calls and social media messages from alumni reacting to reports about the
school’s data falsification. Still, he expects most donors will maintain their commitments
to the university, he said. “The university is not going down,” said Sanders, a 2012
executive MBA alumnus. “There have been issues in the past that have occurred, and
Temple and Fox has gotten through those issues, so it will, it has and it is making us
stronger.”

Sam Hodge — a fellow in the Fox Conwell Club, meaning he’s donated between $10,000
and $24,999 to Temple — said neither the Hill nor Fox controversy impacted his
willingness to contribute. In both situations, the university was decisive and immediately
delivered a response, said Hodge, a legal studies professor….

Most of the trustees interviewed by The Temple News for this story said ideally, Hill
should have been disciplined in some way by the university. But the Board does not have
that power, O’Connor said in December.

4
 At the Board’s last meeting, Englert affirmed that Hill was not speaking as a university
representative at the time of his comments. This absolved him of potential reprimand
because the university’s faculty contract states professors are free from discipline as
private citizens.

Most of all, the First Amendment protects Hill’s right to freedom of speech regardless of
public backlash, said Sarah McLaughlin, a senior program officer in legal and public
advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based
nonprofit that advocates for students and professors’ rights on college campuses.

“The First Amendment is a non-negotiable duty for a university like Temple,” McLaughlin
said. “There are going to be donors who want all kinds of professors fired or students
expelled for what they believe and what they say. If Temple gave in to every donor
demand, it would be a pretty quiet campus.”

The university still has a responsibility to hold public conversations about the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, Charles said. He said the university is planning a two-day conference
about the political issue in April.

“I’m trying to get to the root cause of what this issue is all about and encourage the
university to be the container and facilitator of robust dialogue,” Charles said. “If the
university did more of that, there would be more understanding across these great
divides instead of debate about whether someone will put Temple in his will.”

It is desirable to recall the contrast between his appointment as a professor of communications/media

and noting how he has extolled “Palestinian Freedom-Fighters” and led a “Fuck CNN” chant [@ 2 minute
[https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=marc+lamont+hill+youtube+2019&view=detail&mid=138F546
FCA36F6B0E32E138F546FCA36F6B0E32E&FORM=VIRE] on 1/17/2019; this is not a guy who would best
be perceived by students as a role-model in the specific field in which he allegedly specializes (recalling,
also, that a pattern of unreliable classroom attendance was reported by his students @ two universities).

“Temple takes care of kids,” averred Chair Patrick O’Connor in “Has Temple University Lost Its Way?”
[https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/10/20/temple-university-patrick-oconnor-board-chair-moshe-
porat-dick-englert/], and the Board must therefore confront whether its heartfelt approach is being
compromised by including a faculty member who is so compromised (regardless of the $-impact thereof).

In fact, my father once told me that he was subject to a Jewish admissions-quota when he applied in 1937
to Temple University Medical School, although the existence thereof was subsequently (vigorously)
denied [http://jewishexponent.com/2017/01/27/temple-university-hospital-turns-125-mission-stays/];
thus, it’s arguable that Temple has a special responsibility to ensure Jewish students are also nurtured.

I was asked, a moment ago, why I feel the Temple News article was published, notwithstanding its having
probed some of the interstices of donor-documentation over the years (enlightening to the curious).
Emerging is discomfiture, tentativeness, apprehension … regarding both Hill and other major challenges.
Perhaps it’s felt that the course-of-least-resistance is to hope the entire episode blows-over ASAP, but
knowing he continues to mis-educate while poisoning-minds under the aegis of an evasive dean, THIS is
what continues to gnaw when mega-donors ponder their budgets. {DISCLAIMER: ALL POINTS DISCUSSED
HEREIN ARE BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ARTICLE INCLUDED ACCURATE QUOTES.}