SCHOLARS AND CONTROVERSY: A PROFESSOR’S CONTENTIOUS RESPONSE TO A POLITICAL FIGURE’S DEATH
The intersection of academia and political discourse took a controversial turn this week when Eman Abdelhadi, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago’s Department of Comparative Human Development, made headlines for her inflammatory response to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s death. Following the announcement that the 84-year-old political figure had passed away from complications related to pneumonia and cardiac issues, Abdelhadi took to social media with a post that was unambiguously critical. “Every time one of these mass murderers dies without having faced any consequence for the massacres they ordered, the lives they destroyed, the societies they razed to the ground… I realize how far we are from a world with justice. Rest in hell Dick Cheney. Your legacy is death,” she wrote on her Bluesky account. The timing and tone of her response have sparked discussions about the boundaries of academic freedom and professional conduct in an increasingly polarized political environment.
This incident represents only the most recent controversy surrounding Abdelhadi, who was arrested just weeks earlier on October 3rd during protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing facility in Broadview, Illinois. The demonstrations, which have been ongoing for approximately two months, occasionally turned violent, according to reports. Abdelhadi’s involvement resulted in serious legal consequences: she faces two counts of aggravated battery to a government employee (a Class 3 felony) and two counts of resisting or obstructing peace (a Class A misdemeanor), according to information from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. Just one day before her arrest, Abdelhadi appeared on a podcast where she characterized ICE officials as terrorists, stating, “These people are terrorizing our communities and they’re setting up shop… in Broadview, ICE has been setting up shop in our backyard. Just brazenly taking up community resources to terrorize this very same community.”
The professor’s activism appears to reflect a deeply held political conviction that extends beyond immigration issues. At the Socialism 2025 conference, which describes itself as a gathering for socialists and radical activists, Abdelhadi openly criticized her employer, the University of Chicago. “F— the University of Chicago, it’s evil, you know it’s a colonial landlord,” she stated during the conference. She went on to explain her evolving perspective on working within such an institution, noting, “Turns out, I work at one of the biggest employers in the city of Chicago. I work at a place that is a landlord, a healthcare provider, a police force… but, they are, and a place where I have access to thousands of people that I could potentially organize… actually, this is where I need to build power.” This revelation suggests an intentional approach to leveraging her position within the university structure to advance her political aims.
The University of Chicago, known globally as an elite academic institution, has thus far maintained a measured distance from the controversy surrounding their faculty member. Despite multiple requests for comment regarding Abdelhadi’s employment status following her arrest at the ICE protest, university officials have not provided any substantive response. As of the most recent reports, her faculty page remains active on the university’s website, indicating that no immediate action has been taken regarding her employment. This silence raises questions about how academic institutions balance their commitment to free speech and academic freedom with concerns about professional conduct and institutional reputation in an era where faculty members’ personal political expressions can quickly become public controversies.
The situation highlights the complex relationship between academia and activism in contemporary America. Professors like Abdelhadi often navigate dual identities as both scholars and political actors, particularly those whose academic work intersects with issues of social justice, immigration, and governmental policy. The blurring of these boundaries can create tension, especially when strongly worded criticisms of political figures or institutions move from theoretical academic discourse into public statements. In her podcast appearance, Abdelhadi expressed a stark political position: “There’s no center left. You’re either resisting or you’re complicit.” This binary framing of political engagement reflects a perspective that sees neutrality as impossible in the face of what she perceives as systemic injustice.
These controversies unfold against the backdrop of ongoing debates about the proper role of professors in political discourse and activism. While academic freedom traditionally protects professors’ rights to express controversial views within their areas of expertise, questions arise when these expressions take the form of personal attacks on public figures or when they coincide with actions that result in criminal charges. The case of Professor Abdelhadi illustrates the tensions that can emerge when the worlds of scholarly research, political activism, and public discourse collide. As universities continue to grapple with these issues, the balance between protecting free expression and maintaining professional standards remains a central challenge for higher education in a politically divided society. Neither Abdelhadi nor the University of Chicago provided additional comments when approached about this developing situation.
