BALTIMORE — This saga started about a month ago when anti-Palestinian tweets surfaced from a Johns Hopkins doctor. The story took an ironic turn when the person leading the calls for his ouster, was removed from her position on a state commission to prevent hate crimes, due to anti-Israel Facebook posts. It's now ignited a debate over what speech should be protected, and when.
That debate is evidenced by these dueling petitions - both with more than 8,000 signatures.
One calls for the firingof Johns Hopkins pediatric cardiologist Dr. Darren Klugman. The other calls for Hopkins to stand with the doctor, and restore his employment.
Dr. Klugman was placed on leave a month ago after a series of tweets went viral, in which he refers to Palestinians as "blood thirsty, morally depraved animals." And in response to a user saying "Israeli policy-makers are calling quite literally for a large-scale slaughter," he responds, "g-d willing."
Defenders say, in context, it was clear he was referring to Hamas, and as the “massacre was still ongoing,” emotions were naturally running high. The authors of the petition supporting him also say he has cared for patients of all backgrounds for 15 years, and firing him would harm future patients.
"They found some inartfully worded social media posts generated in a very heated moment, twisted the words to falsely make him out as a bigot, then launched a massive social media, letter-writing, death-threat-issuing campaign to have him removed—with which JHU then complied," the authors write.
"There is no coming back from this. There's no regaining trust. There is no amount of workshops and training that can repair this line of thinking," says the mom of a former patient, who asked for us not to use her name. She says she doesn't feel safe bringing her 14 month-old child to Hopkins while Dr. Klugman is still employed there.
Her son has been treated for a congenital heart defect in the pediatric cardiac unit since he was born. Dr. Klugman is the director for that unit.
"Dr. Klugman's role requires him to care for all children. His words tell us that he views palestinian children as sub-human. These words reflect hate," said Zainab Chaudry, the Maryland director of CAIR - the Council on Islamic-American Relations.
About a week after she began calling for Dr. Klugman to lose both his job and his medical license, she was suspended from her position on the Maryland Attorney General's hate crime prevention commission for controversial social media posts of her own.
In one example- Chaudry posted to her personal Facebook page an image that compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
"I categorically and unequivocally reject any allegations of anti-semitism. I think it's really important to distinguish between criticism of an apartheid genocidal state, and the Jewish people."
In her initial response to her suspension, Chaudry referred to the backlash over her statements as a smear campaign designed to "chill free speech." She says Dr. Klugman should be held to a different standard, as a physician who took an oath to do no harm.
We asked Professor Mark Graber from University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law for his take.
He says there's a difference between speech in the workplace, and speech on social media.
"When we write on social media, unless it's very clear we're writing as our professional selves, we're writing as private citizens, and people just have to understand they may have a doctor that supports Hamas, they may have a doctor that hates Palestinians, that doesn't like women, hates Green Bay Packers fans. But what we write in our private media, in our private conversations, tends not to be a subject for free speech unless it actually threatens someone. And the mere fact that I say, 'I don’t like you, or I don’t like people like you,' and I do it in a private space, that means it’s not actionable.”
He says, in this case, since Hopkins is a private institution, it's not governed by the First Amendment.
Graber also says says federal anti-discrimination laws could come into play, such as a law against creating a hostile work environment. But, "in general, you can only create a hostile work environment...at work."
