Daniel Pollack-Pelzner
The case of Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, a noted Shakespearean scholar and, until recently, the Ronni Lacroute Chair in Shakespeare Studies at Linfield University, has quickly drawn attention to how a university administration and its Board of Trustees can feel entitled to bypass due process and substitute for it corporate protocols that even as such seem ethically problematic. Pollack-Pelzner, who has been a sharp critic of Linfield’s responses to sexual harassment and who has raised serious charges of anti-Semitism, has been fired for being “insubordinate.”
As reported in
The Oregonian, Pollack-Pelzner is known as being “a public advocate for students and faculty who had complained about alleged sexual abuse by board trustees.” He has also publicly reported instances of anti-Semitic statements by Linfield president Miles Davis.
Linfield fires professor who alleged antisemitism and mishandling of sexual misconduct allegations
Only online subscribers may access this article.
For all other subscription offers, click here.
Already a subscriber, please log in.
Related Articles
Hibb
Another outrageous display of heavy-handed actions that have ignored the truth and have opted to try and rid themselves of a problem while actually ignoring the real problem of Davis/Baca. I am personally disgusted with Linfield and will no longer support it, encouraging others to do the same. The antisemitism of Davis is a slap in all our faces!
01:05 am - Wed, April 28 2021
Hibb
April 27, 2021
Linfield fires professor who alleged antisemitism and mishandling of sexual misconduct allegations
Linfield University has fired Dr. Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, a tenured English professor and faculty member of the Board of Trustees who recently alleged he had experienced antisemitism from the president and board chair in the process of reporting sexual misconduct allegations against trustees to the board.
Linfield University told the News-Register the termination, made Tuesday afternoon, was for cause, claiming he has “engaged in conduct that is harmful to the university”; intentionally violated instructions to preserve the attorney-client privilege with respect to information that was entrusted to him in a position of trust and confidence; deliberately circulated false statements about the university, its employees and its board; refused to comply with university policies and, “in doing so, has been insubordinate and interfered with the university’s administra