To The Legal:

For 46 years Pat O'Connor has been my best friend, like a brother to me, one of the greatest lawyers I have ever met, and a wonderful partner. During the entire time that I have known O'Connor, he has never backed away from a fight when the issue was right versus wrong. I put his comments concerning Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill in that latter category.

Speaking not only personally, but as chairman of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute and one of the founders of our Countering Anti-Semitism Through Testimony program (particularly on college campuses), I have a fair understanding of both the danger of Hill's hate speech and the equivalent danger of the support from quasi-progressives such as Temple Association of University Professionals.

From what I can tell, TAUP is an association of folks who practice intersectionality. It is a dangerous practice which has fostered anti-Semitism from the left, as well as from the right.

Hill's statements (not only those made to the United Nations, but those previously made in public fora) are clearly some of the worst anti-Semitic hate speeches that I have heard.

Hill and TAUP cannot stand behind the false rubric of academic freedom. If, in fact, Hill (as I believe he has contended) was not representing Temple or the views of Temple at his recent speaking engagement, then he was speaking as a private citizen and academic freedom is not the issue. The issue then is free speech and as we all know free speech has its limitations. Hate speech is one of them. In my opinion, the delegitimization of the state of Israel is the equivalent of anti-Semitism and is a form of hate speech. So, Hill had no clear right to speak as he did if he was speaking as a private person. On the other hand, if he was, indeed, utilizing his reputation as a Temple University professor in order to gain notoriety through his speech then there are a myriad of rules and regulations at Temple University which place a variety of limitations around the concept of academic freedom. He is subject to all of them.

What O'Connor clearly said is: Hill's speech was disgusting and that he would need to look at what options Temple University had. What better performance would the body politic at Temple University like to have?

Let's not muddy the waters with past wrongheaded criticism of O'Connor from those who are not members of the legal profession, but profess that everyone's rights should be protected (by adequate representation), particularly those accused of wrongdoing.

I suggest that we focus on Hill's recent statements and his prior statements which cannot be misunderstood by any rational listener.

Shame on TAUP for supporting Hill's remarkably hateful statements and for unfairly criticizing someone who has dedicated a substantial part of his professional life to the betterment of Temple University.

Sincerely,

Stephen A. Cozen, Cozen O'Connor Chairman