This is a pretty comprehensive take-down of the MIT leadership and of what the writer sees as their betrayal of academic freedom. There are lots of references to, and contrasts drawn with, UChicago:
https://theusfreespeechunion.substack.com/p/a-portrait-of-dorian-abbot
Well,I agree with the MIT bosses that this might be distracting. I remember a talk by Will Happer - who has some unorthodox views on climate change - where we had hundreds of people in the audience who planned to disrupt him the moment he started on climate. Except that he never really did. It was all about molecular spectroscopy and how future measurements might do a better job than the ones we have today.
MIT’s leadership definitely feels the institute is not woke enough. But they do not have nearly the control of the organization that Zimmer has. Cross Zimmer and “you sleeps with the fishes”.
Examples, please?
BTW, Zimmer is no longer president of the university; his successor, Paul Alivisatos (lately the provost at Cal Berkeley and a UChicago College grad), was inaugurated yesterday. Zimmer has remained present for the time being as Chancellor and will continue to promote the principles of free speech and inquiry. His role will be oriented more to fundraising than promotion and tenure; the latter is ultimately the responsibility of the new pres.
Yes, I knew that. But we don’t have much of a track record with Alivisatos.
Actually we do.
The following went out under Alivisatos’ authority as provost:
https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity
repetition
@Mom2Melcs , I can only add this practical addendum to Ben Schwarz’s analysis: If MIT had hoped to cancel Dorian Abbot in the wider world they have failed spectacularly, given the extensive coverage (most of it negative) that this action received and given the even greater audience Abbot achieved (4,000 were reported) when he delivered the same lecture courtesy of Princeton. MIT has been embarrassed, the cancellation has created blowback within the institution itself, and Abbot has had a triumph handed to him. If the reason for his cancellation was avoidance of controversy it has achieved the reverse of this.
@MITPhysicsAlum , the content of Abbot’s proposed MIT lecture was entirely unrelated to his thoughts about admissions policy, so that should have put him in the same position as the lecturer you mention. What made Abbot’s situation so different? In the Princeton-facilitated version of his lecture he not only didn’t make any remarks on that issue, he did not even refer to his cancellation by MIT. However, revenge is a dish best eaten cold.
@JBStillFlying , I believe we are going to see in Paul Alivasatos an interesting and possibly transformational President of the University of Chicago. His remarks make it clear that he intends to build on the University’s legacies of “learning for its own sake”, independent inquiry, free speech, the Core, and all the things we traditionalists love about it. But he also suggested some points of departure from the past - greater engagement with the neighborhood, the city of Chicago, and the wider world; a greater emphasis on co-operation and co-ordination within the University itself; and an ever-greater expansion of inclusiveness. In short he seems to me to be striking a balance between the “hard” virtues and the “soft” ones. I am especially hopeful that as a grad of the College himself he will be simpatico with students and will find the means of circulating informally among them. He would have a credibility with them that few previous Presidents have had. As an alumnus myself I can’t help envying him the fun of running a place where he himself was once no more than a powerless kid trying to figure out the meaning of life and what he was to do with his own. Every inch of that campus must be freighted with memories and emotions. They must be raining down on him now, returning after all these years with all his accomplishments in the life he went on to live. I believe he will be true to the spirit of the place.
About five or six years have passed. Today, I am certain the disruption would have begun before he uttered a word.
In contrast, the University of Chicago has actually codified disciplinary measures for students that disrupt and won’t allow others to speak. That and the overall culture of civilized discourse has probably prevented such outbursts from taking over any one speaking event.
For those who haven’t watched Friday’s inauguration, I’d highly recommend it - youtube embedded in the link below. Marlowe is correct in the characterization of what Alivisatos professes to want to do which is none other than return to WR Harper’s expansive vision of a great university that proactively connects with the local, national and global communities for the benefit of humankind. His one “harsh” critique of UChicago was that part of this expansive vision was toned down or even abandoned a decade or so after Harper’s tenure and the university went through a period of being inward, rather than outward, looking. I attended UC at such a time and agree that the place, including parts of Hyde Park, had a cloistered feel to it. A lot has changed in 20 years, but Alivisatos seems to be planning to go more aggressive and actively engage with all sorts of ideas. How they will balance this goal against the university’s own long-standing principles (including the Chicago Principles and the Kalven Report) remains to be seen. But I feel reasonably assured that he’s not out to change what his colleague Steven Chu (Nobel Laureate in Physics) characterized as a unique feature of UChicago among its peers: a culture of intellectual honesty. Boy, I loved hearing that! I know several other academics who have made the same comment, but it’s nice hearing that from such a prominent scientist and friend of the new guy in charge.
Had the MIT peeps in charge just stated “look, we are afraid of our students disrupting things so we decided to cancel this speaker instead because that’s easier” - that would have at least been honest (had that been their actual reason). Wimpy, but honest. Instead, they went on to make up a whole lot of nonsense about how academic freedom doesn’t apply in this case, and how the “character” of the speaker counts. Apparently MIT doesn’t consider public lectures by renown climate scientists as an “academic topic” and gender/racial politics is more important than climate science (or maybe, only those espousing certain political thoughts are allowed to speak on campus about climate science; can’t think of a better way to discredit the topic! Come to think of it, can’t think of a better way to discredit the reputation of MIT).
But back to discussing UChicago: This public lecture is an example of the types of connections that great universities can make with their surrounding community. It makes me wonder how Alivisatos would respond had the lectureship been one of his projects and Abbott had been from MIT. Let’s say, further, that members of the university and surrounding community oppose this professor’s viewpoints because they see them as racist and/or sexist. Finally, let’s assume that there is a genuine chance of students attempting to shut down the lecture. How would Alivisatos respond, since a few of his objectives would seem to be at odds with one another? We already know how the university under Zimmerman responded to the petitions to get Abbott removed from advising and teaching in the graduate program: it was a great big “Nope.” But that was then and this is now, with new objectives and an expansive mission to make nice with the surrounding communities and divisions within the university. So what would happen this time?