Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology Telephone: (215) 333-4900

Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152
March 11, 2019

To: Patrick J. O’Connor, Esq., Chair, Temple University Board of Trustees – Plus Trustees
Re: Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. [D.O.B. 12/17/1978]
Cc: []

What has been published episodically in Philadelphia Magazine provides insight as to how he portrayed
himself to its audience; in my lifetime of reading it for more than a half-century, this glossy has been
diminished from must-read to supplemental analysis. It hasn’t provided a “big reveal” c/o investigative
journalism, even as well-written stories have become briefer in the interim; nevertheless, it’s a “resource.”

For example, the three articles of-interest [vide infra] emerging from a simple-search on his name are
puff-pieces that fail to analyze in a fashion that is comparable to what has been unearthed following
minimal “digging” by the ZOA; one would hope that Dean Boardman had scrutinized the available
information on the Internet and via social-media before having recommended he be placed in the tenured
Charles Chair that focuses upon exploring ACADEMICALLY Media, Communications, and Urban Life.

The first is comprised of an interview on CNN by Don Lemon to discuss the rioting in Baltimore, committing
VIOLENCE was endorsed, a pattern that has been previously documented in exhaustive detail, extending
over the years [https://www.phillymag.com/?s=marc+lamont+hill#SDGiDsK5I8a6dtJ9.99]; illustrating the
lack of a modicum of journalistic integrity, all this publication did is excerpt one ‘graph from another site
[https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/04/28/cnns-marc-lamont-hill-baltimore-not-
riot-uprisings-against-police] instead of probing the interstices of what had been unabashedly conveyed:

This is not a riot. There have been uprisings in major cities and smaller cities around this
country for the last year because of the state violence that’s been waged against black
female and male bodies forever. And I think that’s what’s important here. I agree with
you, Don, we can’t ignore the fact that the city is burning, but we need to be talking about
why it’s burning and not romanticize peace and not romanticize marching as the only
way to function. I’m not saying we should be hurting, I’m not saying we should be killing
people, but we do have to understand that resistance looks different ways to different
people, and part of what it means to say black lives matter, is to assert our right to have
rage and righteous rage and righteous indignation in the face of state violence and
extrajudicial killing. Freddie Gray is dead. That’s why the city is burning. And let’s make
that clear: The city is not burning because of protesters. the city is burning because the
police killed Freddie Gray.

Despite the “friendly” venue for a trial against the police officers involved, “Prosecutors dropped all
charges against [all] officers.” [https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bal-photos-
officer-miller-trial-in-baltimore-20160725-photogallery.html]. Thus, this premature rabble-rousing effort
was not validated by rule-of-law, but no one has heard him apologize for playing judge/jury/executioner;
to the contrary, he proudly played an identical role in an identical situation in Ferguson, Missouri.

1
Philadelphia Magazine deleted key-quotes, notwithstanding how damning the above selection actually is;
note how another publication annotated the text and then recognize this mechanism of literary cover-up:

CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill on Baltimore:

‘This Is Not a Riot’ But ‘Uprisings’ Against ‘Police Terrorism’

During CNN’s live coverage on Monday night of the Baltimore riots, CNN commentator
Marc Lamont Hill urged viewers to view what was taking place as “not a
riot” but “uprisings” in response to African-Americans “dying in the streets for months,
years, decades, centuries” due to “police terrorism.”

When brought into the discussion by CNN Tonight host Don Lemon, Hill declared
that “there shouldn’t be calm tonight” in Baltimore since there’s been “black
people...dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries” and endorsed the
need for “resistance to oppression and when resistance occurs, you can't circumscribe
resistance.”
*
The far-left pundit continued by citing the need to both “not get more upset about the
destruction of property than the destruction of black bodies” as well as “not
romanticize peace...as the only way to function”[emphasis mine]:

We can't ignore the fact that the city is burning, but we need to be talking
about why it's burning and not romanticize peace and not romanticize
marching as the only way to function. I'm not saying we should be
hurting, I’m not saying we should be killing people, but we do have to
understand that resistance looks different ways to different people and
part of what it means to say black lives matter, is to assert our right to
have rage – righteous rage, righteous indignation in the face of state
violence and extrajudicial killing. Freddie Gray is dead. That's why the
city is burning and let’s make that clear. It's not burning because of these
protesters. The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray and
that’s a distinction we have to make.

Seemingly stunned, CNN political commentator Van Jones expressed his disagreement by
saying, in part, that [again, emphasis mine]:

Yes, it is true. Dr. King said riots are the language of the unheard. It is,
in fact true, and important that people recognize that the conditions in
Baltimore for black teens are worse than conditions for teens in
Nigeria. So, the outrage should be of course about the incredible injustice
both from the police, but also the economic deprivation and I want to
have a conversation. But I do want to be able to draw a line to say that
the righteous outrage – we can take a moral position, as a part of this
movement. Black lives matter, but you know what? Black jobs matter,
and black businesses matter, and black neighborhoods matter and I
don't think it's appropriate for us to give any kind of suggestion that the
destruction of black communities is a positive or can be positive in this
context.

2
When Hill was given the chance to respond, he only backtracked slightly and suggested
that “we should be more strategic in how we riot” (after saying minutes earlier that the
word “riot” shouldn’t be used):

I'm not saying we should see the destruction of black communities as

positive. I'm saying that we can't have too narrow a perception of what
the destruction of black communities mean[s] and it seems we exhausted
more of our moral outrage tonight and not the 364 days before tonight.
I think we should be strategic in how we riot.

Like Jones, Lemon made clear that he was also strongly opposed to Hill’s thinking:

Marc, I got to tell you this. I understand – yes, we should be outraged and
we get that, we understand that and we devote so much coverage, not
only this network, but other networks that I've seen, to talk about all of
those issues that we've seen. We've exhausted many times the viewer
with that, and we should continue to, but we're trying to figure out
exactly what is leading to what we're seeing tonight and I agree with Van
Jones, we cannot give credence to people who want to go out and burn
down buildings and to hurt people.

Between a few moments of cross-talk between Lemon and Hill, the latter again ranted:

What I’m saying is we can’t pathologize people who, after decades and
centuries of police terrorism, have decided to respond in this way and
when we use the language of thugs, when we use the language of riots,
we make it seem as if it’s this pathological, dysfunctional, counter-
productive[.]

The relevant portions of the transcript from CNN Tonight on April 27 can be found below.

CNN Tonight
April 27, 2015
10:51 p.m. Eastern

MARC LAMONT HILL: No, there shouldn’t be calm tonight. Black people are dying in the
streets. They’ve been dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries. I think
there can be resistance to oppression and when resistance occurs, you can't circumscribe
resistance. You can’t schedule a planned resistance. You can't tell people where to die
in, where to resist, how to resist and how to protest. Now, I think there should be an
ethics attached to this, but we have to watch our own ethics and be careful not to get
more upset about the destruction of property than the destruction of black bodies and
that seems to be to me – to me what's happening over the last few hours and that’s very
troublesome to me. We also have to be very careful about the language we use to talk
about this. I'm not calling these people rioters. I'm calling these uprisings and I think it's
an important distinction to make. This is not a riot. There have been uprisings in major
cities and smaller cities around this country for the last year because of the violence
against black female and male bodies forever and I think that’s what important here.

3
I agree with you, Don. We can't ignore the fact that the city is burning, but we need to be
talking about why it's burning and not romanticize peace and not romanticize marching
as the only way to function. I'm not saying we should be hurting, I’m not saying we should
be killing people, but we do have to understand that resistance looks different ways to
different people and part of what it means to say black lives matter, is to assert our
right to have rage – righteous rage, righteous indignation in the face of state violence
and extrajudicial killing. Freddie Gray is dead. That's why the city is burning and let’s
make that clear. It's not burning because of these protesters. The city is burning because
the police killed Freddie Gray and that’s a distinction we have to make.

(....)

JONES: Well, I think he was taking more of an agnostic view that we need to give some
space for a range of tactics. I would say – I would disagree. I think we should be showing
moral leadership and saying, you know – I keep hearing riots are the language of the
unheard. The reality is, in this situation, the voices, at least about police brutality, have
been heard. Certainly CNN and other news agencies have been giving space to those
voices. So –

LEMON: For hours and hours and hours of coverage daily.

JONES: And so, it's going to be a tough conversation to have, but I want to say: Yes, it is
true. Dr. King said riots are the language of the unheard. It is, in fact true, and important
that people recognize that the conditions in Baltimore for black teens are worse than
conditions for teens in Nigeria. So, the outrage should be of course about the incredible
injustice both from the police, but also the economic deprivation and I want to have a
conversation. But I do want to be able to draw a line to say that the righteous outrage –
we can take a moral position, as a part of this movement. Black lives matter, but you know
what? Black jobs matter, and black businesses matter, and black neighborhoods matter
and I don't think it's appropriate for us to give any kind of suggestion that the destruction
of black communities is a positive or can be positive in this context.
(....)

HILL: I'm not saying we should see the destruction of black communities as positive. I'm
saying that we can't have too narrow a perception of what the destruction of black
communities mean[s] and it seems we exhausted more of our moral outrage tonight and
not the 364 days before tonight. I think we should be strategic in how we riot.

LEMON: Marc, I got to tell you this. I understand – yes, we should be outraged and we get
that, we understand that and we devote so much coverage, not only this network, but
other networks that I've seen, to talk about all of those issues that we've seen. We've
exhausted many times the viewer with that, and we should continue to, but we're trying
to figure out exactly what is leading to what we're seeing tonight and I agree with Van
Jones, we cannot give credence to people who want to go out and burn down buildings
and to hurt people.

(....)

4
 HILL: What I’m saying is we can’t pathologize people who, after decades and centuries
of police terrorism, have decided to respond in this way and when we use the language
of thugs, when we use the language of riots, we make it seem as if it’s this pathological,
dysfunctional, counter-productive –

LEMON: I haven't heard anybody say thugs.

HILL: Are you serious? That’s all I’ve heard stuff.

LEMON: If anyone said thugs on this air, I haven't heard that. I’ve haven’t heard thugs and
that's not come out of my mouth.

This rhetoric is c/w the prior claim that it’s insufficient to emulate nonviolence of MLK, Jr. and Gandhi;
indeed, even the two people with whom he’s discussing this [left-libs both] recoil at his assertions.

******

Quoted in a second piece, he even opined he (and, presumably, his America) can’t “afford” Trump winning
the Presidency, “a terribly dangerous idea” [https://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/08/10/marc-
lamont-hill-afford-donald-trump-presidency/#uewm5TSWlP3EG9d9.99]. This essay’s predictions should
be compared/contrasted with what has actually transpired during the past two years, and the reader is
cordially invited to draw reasonable conclusions wearing “glasses” tinted neither “yellow” nor “black.”

******

A third piece extols his “Labor of Love in Germantown: Uncle Bobbie's Coffee & Books [which] is at once
an extension of the activist-scholar's personality and a tribute to the man who taught him how to love the
written word [https://www.phillymag.com/business/2017/11/29/marc-lamont-opens-uncle-bobbies-in-
germantown/#3QUsULPF3z9JY5Bq.99]. This essay is, perhaps purposely, devoid of any critical analysis.

******

Apparently, in the current issue [March] on page 20, he employs colorful language; this is not online but,
after it has been acquired, the primary data will be dutifully disseminated. One wonders why he would
think that it’s advisable to employ curse-words [such as when he led the “F*** CNN” chant recently],
particularly recalling his professorship-position. One can argue that it’s great to “relate” with listeners,
but it’s quite another to purvey violence consistently and to “educate” students to emulate his vulgarisms.

These remain the concerns that animate the composition of these letters, for it would appear that the
results of our research are unassailable [noting the rigorous provision of hyperlinks, to validate content];
thus, because the information distilled herein and by others is dispositive [comprised of direct quotes],
the Board should act against this fomenter of violence and the Dean who agitated for his being hired.

Note that, although this initiative was triggered by his expression of Jew-hatred, thematic has been the
fact that he channels his hero [Farrakhan] and his progenitor [Malcolm X] while disseminating deceit;
professors aren’t expected to lie about basic information, as has been repeatedly occurring in this case
[notably when claiming MLK, Jr. had actually conveyed the messaging of the Black Muslims of the ‘60s].
Simply put, he must be fired for [during the past ¼ year] he has been both incorrigible and unapologetic.