By J. Addisu

Until last week the American law professor Abigail Salisbury was teaching at the Law Faculty of Mekelle University.

Suddenly her contract was terminated by the university officials without receiving the three-month payment which, according to Professor Salisbury, was a clear term in her contract in case of its premature termination. Why this sudden termination??

The administration claims that “incompetence” was the reason.

But Professor Salisbury claims that her public voicing of alternative views on the U.S. House of Representatives' Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 (HR2003) was what got her fired.

Shortly after the firing, Professor Salisbury wrote a column in the web-based ‘The Jurist’, a University of Pittsburgh law review journal, in which she described her experiences and her opinion not only about the HR2003 but also the general environment at Mekelle University Law Faculty.

The column is a solid attack on the government and the supposed lack of freedom of expression at universities in Ethiopia. “Because all of the instructors at Ethiopian universities are made to sign a contract that we will never say anything against the government or ruling party, I had been very careful in wording my assignment […] Out of the hundred third-year students I teach, probably forty of them had inserted a special section, right after the cover page, warning me of what might happen to them were their paper to leave my hands.

"A number of students wrote that they would never give their real opinions to an Ethiopian professor because they fear being turned in to the government and punished. Others begged me to take their work back to America with me so that people would know what was going on.

"Of those who wrote such notes, almost all said that I would probably be surprised to find that many of the students had been afraid to express their true feelings at the HR2003 discussion forum because you never know who is listening […]

"To be fair, I can understand why the students might be afraid to speak their minds, because there have been a number of student protests which have been put down with violence recently, some journalists have been imprisoned, and much of the media is censored,” according to Professor Salisbury´s column.

These are, among others, severe accusations

A reporter from Walta Information Center (WIC) who claims to have questioned some students at the Mekelle University to have their comments on the matter, responded on Professor Salisbury´s column, writing that her accusations were “baseless and absurd fabrication.”

According to the reporter, “third year law students said that the human rights instructor was attempting to put pressure on the students to accept the rightness of the bill. Besides, Salisbury spent most of the period talking nonsense bragging about the might, history, prosperity and the like of her country which has nothing to do with her human rights class.”

Still, according to the Walta reporter, “One hundred and thirty third year law students of the university signed a petition which demands the instructor [Professor Salisbury] to refrain from her destructive attempts and only do her teaching. In addition, the faculty’s students’ dean office also requested the instructor to give response to the demands of the students. She, however, turned down the requests of both.”  

After reading both sides of the story, one is left confused – as to whom to believe: Professor Salisbury or the reporter from WIC? Could around the same forty students whom Professor Salisbury claims to have written a special section in their papers warning her of what might happen to them if their writings fell into the wrong hands, also have signed a petition against the Professor and her "destructive attempts" put pressure on them to accept the rightness of the HR2003? That sounds unlikely! But is this not the exact core in Professor Salisbury´s accusations that the students are too afraid to express their true feelings; too afraid of reprisals if they spoke the truth, so instead they will protect themselves through silence or pro-government comments. So maybe both accounts are true.

One more question is ubiquitous: What motives could Professor Salisbury have in writing such serious accusations if not to speak the truth? The reporter from WIC answers that question in his headline. It is a cover-up for poor academic performance. Salisbury’s accusations have primarily come forth after she was fired, so it could also be out of revenge or anger - but now we are just guessing.

To suddenly fire a professor out of incompetence without any compensation is a serious matter and the university officials should come up with hard evidence backing their decision to terminate Professor Salisbury´s contract. So far we are left with the possibility that Abigail Salisbury actually was fired because of her alternative opinion and views on the U.S. House of Representatives' Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007.

As long as such doubt is ubiquitous it will continue to undermine the whole idea of freedom of expression and independence of the universities. More research should be done either to confirm or dismiss Professor Salisbury´s accusations.

In a modern democracy we cannot allow not to react on such fundamental accusations, because if  - and only if - the accusations are grounded in reality we are definitely entitled to some answers from the ruling government.