Where allegations become facts and free speech is selective
Why was my essay on academic freedom and freedom of expression censored while Ian Hutchinson’s defamatory attack was published?
In the September–October 2025 issue of the MIT Faculty Newsletter (FNL), there’s an essay by Professor Ian Hutchinson, titled “Are Ad Hominem Attacks Legitimate Academic Freedom?”, accusing me of “egregious abuse of power as a faculty member,” of “academic harassment unworthy of an MIT faculty member,” and of conduct that should have led to my being “restrained in a timely manner by the MIT administration and strongly disciplined.”
These are sweeping and defamatory ad hominem charges. They rest on allegations in the Sussman et al v. MIT et al federal lawsuit that Hutchinson himself concedes are “as yet unproven.” Yet in the same breath, he treats them as established facts.
So am I to be guilty until proven innocent?
Double standards in plain sight
Just months earlier, the same FNL editors who approved Hutchinson’s piece had refused to publish my essay on academic freedom and free speech (or, rather, lack thereof) at MIT. Their stated reason: concerns about unidentified “statements that could be considered libelous.” They never identified a single such statement despite my repeated asking.
The contrast between the fate of my submission and that of Hutchinson could not be clearer. While mine was censored under a vague pretext, Hutchinson’s was published.
The double standards don’t stop there. When I submitted my essay to the FNL, the editors insisted that they could not publish it without first seeking rebuttals from the MIT administrators I had critiqued — Section Head Danny Fox, SHASS Dean Agustín Rayo and Vice Provost for Faculty Paula Hammond.
Yet Hutchinson’s accusations against me were published without any request for my rebuttal.
Why is there one standard for DeGraff and another for Hutchinson?
The situation is further complicated by conflicts of interest. The president of AAUP@MIT who is also a co-chair of the FNL participated in the review of my essay, which was eventually censored, even though it contained a sharp critique of AAUP@MIT’s silence about violations of my academic freedom. This critique was eventually published in Mondoweiss, and another part of the censored essay was further developed and published in The Tech. The AAUP@MIT president had justified the MIT Linguistics section’s censorship of my “Special Topics” seminar on language and linguistics for decolonization and liberation in Haiti, Palestine, and Israel by prioritizing the section’s “collective academic freedom” over my individual academic freedom, a fundamental misinterpretation. Collective academic freedom applies, for example, when a course is co-taught or is a core requirement of a curriculum, not a “Special Topics” elective, designed precisely to explore material outside MIT Linguistics’ regular curriculum. In such circumstances, there is no plausible argument that MIT Linguistics’ “collective” academic freedom should override my individual right to “advance knowledge” in a new area of my choosing, one of acute relevance to our world today. To suggest otherwise is not just mistaken — it is an abuse of the very concept of academic freedom.
The cumulative effect of the FNL’s editorial practices is to silence certain voices while amplifying others. The FNL denied me a forum by citing libel while publishing Hutchinson’s defamation, suggested rebuttals to my essay in order to protect administrators from my critique while offering me no such protection from Hutchinson’s accusations, and allowed one of its co-chairs to review my essay critiquing the organization (AAUP@MIT) presided by said co-chair.
These choices by the FNL are textbook examples of bias and disparate treatment.
The MIT Faculty Newsletter is supposed to be a forum for faculty voices across MIT, a space where principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression are honored. At a time when the FNL is under review by the MIT administration, when MIT itself is under scrutiny for its mishandling of academic freedom and free speech, and when Title VI is being weaponized nationwide as a “cudgel” against our First-Amendment rights, the FNL should model fairness and accountability. Instead, it has become a vehicle for selective amplification and silencing.
I write this not only in my defense but in defense of the broader principle that faculty governance must be transparent, consistent and equitable. If the FNL is to remain a credible venue for dialogue, it must adopt clear editorial standards and apply them fairly.
It cannot continue to bend reality by treating allegations as facts, by silencing some voices while amplifying others, and by letting conflicts of interest guide decisions.
The need for the FNL to change course is crucial now that Trump, through his “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” has made it even clearer than before what the endgame of his fascism is vis-à-vis academia — a loyalty oath to MAGA as a condition for federal funding. Meanwhile, universities and even some of our traditional “allies” are caving in shamelessly. The credibility of the FNL and the health of academic freedom and free speech at MIT partly depend on the FNL editors’ willingness to reckon with and eliminate these double standards in their editorial practices.
Editorial Board Note: David Lewis, Managing Editor of the Faculty Newsletter, provided this statement to The Tech:
“Our policies about editorial decisions are currently being revised in response to the recommendations made by the "Committee to Review the Faculty Newsletter Policies and Procedures" (Silbey Report), so anything we say now does not reflect the process we are undergoing. However, we can say that if we find that an article inappropriately mentions an individual in a way that is potentially libelous, we consult with the OGC [Office of General Counsel]. We also ask authors to revise and resubmit their papers if the content could potentially damage the reputation of an individual. If the author chooses not to revise and resubmit their article, then it hasn’t been rejected. We take the author to have withdrawn the submission.”