Letter Supporting Fired Texas State Philosophy Professor and Boycott of University
Last month it was reported that Idris Robinson, a tenure-track assistant professor of philosophy at Texas State University, is suing several university officials for violating his constitutional rights after they told him he would have his contract terminated in May, because of complaints about a talk he gave last year on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
See this post for details. Now, an effort is underway to put public pressure on the university to reverse its decision.
A public letter supporting Dr. Robinson and calling for a boycott of Texas State University has been published and is open for additional signatories.
The letter states:
We are deeply concerned by Texas State University’s (TXST) decision to remove Professor Idris Robinson from his role as an Assistant Professor of Philosophy. Upon examination of the available evidence, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Professor Robinson’s removal was politically motivated and based on his speech, which violates academic freedom, the First Amendment, and university policy. Furthermore, we believe the university may have failed to follow its own procedural protocols during his removal…
We, the undersigned, condemn Professor Robinson’s removal and demand that Texas State University reinstate him immediately. We also call for an academic boycott of Texas State University until such time as Professor Robinson has been reinstated, above all a ban on giving talks at the University, irrespective of academic field. We also encourage individual academics and academic institutions and departments to write and publish letters to TXST officials supporting Professor Robinson’s immediate reinstatement (including the chancellor, the administrators, and the board of regents).
The full letter, which the authors report has been endorsed by the Texas State Employees Union, is here.
MC Abdul — Shouting at the Wall
This is an outrage, and I encourage our colleagues to sign and (for those who have it) support with a few dollars. A young philosopher was fired from a tenure-track job on the basis of a talk he gave in another state. Even if you do not share his views on the topic at hand, you might defend a colleague’s right to speak with relevant expertise on a controversial issue.
Fwiw, distinguished people in the field have spoken highly of his book (which I have ordered but not yet received), so it’s apparently a promising scholar and teacher being sabotaged.
For more background the Guardian published this (link below) in March:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/professor-texas-state-university-israel-palestine
Here is the original Instagram post referenced in The Guardian Article. There is a plausible case that he was fired for inciting the crowd to attack people in the audience.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DKh734Ux8AQ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Additional context helps clarify the doubtful character of that concern: https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/04/22/their-chaos-is-our-peace-fighting-zionist-repression-in-texas-and-beyond/.
There are also credible reports that he used the department stapler, emptied it, and never refilled it. It could be that. Or free speech. Let’s wait for the facts.
And let’s not forget the time he emptied the department coffee pot and didn’t make more.
All kinds of people might have all kinds of reasons to dislike Robinson’s speech. Extending that dislike to the speaker is anybody’s right, I guess. But scrutiny of the factual claims made by those who filed the complaint shows them to be exaggerated and under-supported. (“There is a plausible case” is a way of saying, I can’t actually prove it, but I’ll assert it anyway and see if the charge sticks to the wall.) Thus, those who complained have little cause to demand that Robinson be fired by a university hundreds of miles away, on behalf of students who never heard this talk, or because of diaphanous metaphysical damage to the reputation of Texas State when Robinson’s affiliation was never even announced.
I suggest that the following be added to all such letters:
“We, the undersigned, wish to demonstrate that we are concerned about this matter not for crude partisan reasons, but on a matter of principle. That principle, [state the principle here]. would be just as strong if the political position were reversed. Therefore, we hereby commit as well to calling for ourselves to be discredited and removed from our positions, should we ever be found to apply this principle arbitrarily.”
I would take these letters, and their signatories, much more seriously if they added that final paragraph to their letters. Otherwise, I’m afraid the evidence has become much too strong that they are used by unprincipled and unphilosophical people to exert raw political power.
One fun thing to require of people would be this: Any time they object to someone’s hypocrisy they must add the following “The principle that hypocrisy is objectionable would be just as strong if the political position were reversed. I hereby call for myself to be discredited if I am ever found to have failed to object to hypocrisy in similar cases.”
Otherwise, I’m afraid the evidence has become much too strong that accusations of hypocrisy are used by unprincipled and unphilosophical people to exert raw political power.