<p>Nate Silver rules the world, but the man who just ran the successful election is leaving at the top and setting up a new University of Chicago Institute of Politics for students interested in "politics and policymaking."</p>
<p>University</a> creates new Institute of Politics | The University of Chicago</p>
<p>I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama, in 2016, rejoining the University as faculty or with this new institute.</p>
<p>I imagine he, like ex-Presidents Clinton and Carter, will want to head some sort of big-picture organization of his own. But Chicago seems a likely spot for that, and the University of Chicago would not be out of the question as a place to host such an organization. However, everyone’s purposes may be better served by not housing it in the university.</p>
<p>Another interesting factor: When Obama leaves office, Sasha will likely be in the middle of 10th grade. Will they make her change schools then? Will she and her mother move back to Chicago at the start of the school year (and return to the Lab School, which I assume would find a place for her), or move someplace else? Does she go to boarding school? Or do the Obamas decide to stay in Washington until she finishes high school at Sidwell Friends?</p>
<p>Bill Ayers might offer homeschool services for a reasonable fee.</p>
<p>logicalidea (objectiveperson?) - there was another thread like this - the Kalven Report isn’t extremist, and certainly not enough to make the Presidential Library a “blatant violation” of the Report itself. As discussed in the other thread, the Kalven Report is actually worded quite broadly, and is simply a reflection of the free speech principles that govern lots of universities. </p>
<p>The Kalven Report, like the pedagogical approaches of Columbia, Stanford, etc., allow for partisan and agenda-driven wings to arise (e.g. the Hoover Institute at Stanford, the Institute for Israel at Columbia), as long as the university overall - as an institution - does not adopt a particular view.</p>
<p>Put another way, the Hoover institute may have very particular inclinations about certain topics, but, overall, Stanford would be neutral on these topics. Same would hold for UChicago if the Obama Library took root in Hyde Park.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how the Sudan divestment issue applies to the Obama Presidential Library issue. The Sudan issue dealt with University of Chicago endowment funds invested by the overall institution itself. The Obama Presidential Library would appear to be a wing of the university, and not representative of the institution itself. Therefore, these examples do not seem to correlate. </p>
<p>The Sudan issue is separate, (although, I think President Zimmer took an overly extremist reading of a report that, to me, seems quite moderate). In any case, I’m not sure how an issue (Sudan) that deals with the entire university and does seem to at least call for a close reading of the Kalven Report, relates to the narrower issue of what wings of the university may do (e.g. like the Presidential library). </p>
<p>Again, the reasonable interpretation of the report allows for partisan wings - such as the Becker-Friedman Institute or the Obama Library to arise - just as Columbia has an Institute on Israel and Stanford has the Hoover Institution.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know how you missed the presidential library thread, but here it is:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1424035-uchicago-steps-up-push-obama-presidential-library.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1424035-uchicago-steps-up-push-obama-presidential-library.html</a></p>
<p>2manyschools takes a reasoned approach to the interpretation of the Kalven Report, and provides sound analysis on how the Obama Presidential Library does not contravene this Report.</p>
<p>@logicalidea: You think that the mere act of <em>hiring</em> a former politician in itself would violate the Kalven Report? That’s wrong. If he or she is hired to run an institute or join the faculty, that is precisely what the Kalven Report contemplates as permitted, indeed encouraged. Moreover, by your logic, the U of C could never have hired Ed Levi back to teach at the Law School after he had been Attorney General from 1975 to 1977. And Levi himself must have been very aware of the Kalven Report because he was appointed as the U of C’s president in 1968, just after the Report was issued. </p>
<p>(For those who don’t know, the Kalven Report (www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/kalverpt.pdf), was a report authored by a University committee chaired by Professor Kalven, a First Amendment expert at the U of C Law School in 1967. Some other members of the committee were Nobel-laureate-to-be George Stigler and the extraordinary scholar of African-American history, John Hope Franklin. The report laid out a general principle that the in order to protect and foster the atmosphere of free inquiry necessary for a community of scholars, the University – as a collective – should abstain from taking part directly in politics, although nothing in the report precluded individuals at the university from undertaking scholarly work with political implications. The Report anticipated that there would be exceptions to the rule against the University abstaining from politics, when the politics in question threatened or were antithetical to free inquiry and freedom of thought themselves. </p>
<p>The application of the Report by University administrators has often been criticized as inconsistent. Most recently, students, Professor Kalven’s son, and John Hope Franklin all argued that the University should not consider the Kalven Report to preclude the University from divesting in Darfur, because supporting genocide is something which is antithetical to free inquiry and freedom of thought.]</p>
<p>I think the Kalven Report is worded broadly enough to allow shifts in interpretation to occur. I do think Zimmer’s reading of the Report regarding the divestment issue was much too extreme. The administration may be hypocritical, but the Report itself as a guide seems to be pretty reasonable. </p>
<p>To sum, your critique seems to be more at the current administration rather than the Report and its ethos. That’s fair. I don’t think there’s anything in the Report itself, however, that explicitly would ban the Obama Library. Actually, if the administration shifts its policy away from the discomfiting standard it set with the Sudan issue, I have no problem with that. I’d prefer hypocrisy and eventually getting the interpretation right rather than consistently being erroneous with the interpretation. Would you prefer consistency in wrongful interpretation over the hypocrisy that eventually leads to a more correct analysis?</p>
<p>logicalidea - I guess I’m not reading the Kalven Report as a series of “rules.” To me, they read like general guiding principles. Further, just like any guiding principles, they can be interpreted and applied dutifully or erroneously. I don’t believe, however, that the possibility of misapplication totally removes the value of such a broad “mission statement.” Like any other set of broad principles, we can only hope that those who lead interpret responsibly. </p>
<p>I’m not sure what a revision of such a broad policy would do. The basic principle for UChicago - like for most universities - is to encourage a free flow of ideas. The Kalven Report just expounds on this principle for a couple pages. </p>
<p>Again, maybe I’m missing something about the Report itself, but I’ve read it a few times now and it doesn’t seem to nail down the university with any particular rigidity. Like many guides, its up to those in charge to interpret it dutifully. I don’t see the university being “stuck with the rules it set up” because the Report is such a broad document. I agree this administration should be scrutinized, but I don’t think the Report itself is the issue.</p>
<p>Again, the critique of the administration is fair, and they may be interpreting the Report hypocritically over time. The Report itself, though, again, doesn’t seem to be the issue.</p>
<p>What would that “break with the past” look like? The Kalven Report, to me, seems pretty broad and pretty moderate. What would a “break” from such a moderate document look like? If you tear up the document that praises free speech and neutrality, does that mean the institution should do a 180, chill free speech, and encourage university-wide partisanship? Should the university campaign to change the name of the school to Obama University? </p>
<p>I’m not sure what a “break with the past” means. Especially because the administration is not static and presidents and administrators serve for terms, it seems as if change would hit UChicago as it hits other schools - new blood enters, outside market forces compel change, and increased abilities by many to scrutinize formerly less public decisions - can drive that change forward. Hoping for a “break with the past,” on the other hand, seems to be a viewpoint that is tinged with some naivete.</p>
<p>I will admit: I do not believe you are operating honestly here, Logicalidea. I am not talking about a presidential library. I am talking about what this thread is about: The speculation that the U of C might hire President Obama after he leaves office in some capacity. </p>
<p>Your elision of this topic (you said hiring him would violate the principles set out by the Kalven Report: “This would be a blatant violation of the Kalven Report. No doubt UChicago would be happy to have Obama, but if he did what you are proposing, the University would be violating its own policy and drowning in hypocrisy”) and the question of a presidential library in light of the divestment controversy (collateral topics that no one here raised)-- as well as other things that are hard to pin down, like your way of putting things – makes me doubt that you are not “objectiveperson” coming back with a different account. And your statements to the contrary (and even more incredibly your statement that you didn’t know about the other thread) don’t seem to me to ring true. </p>
<p>So, because I feel that you very likely are being dishonest with me and with the ither readers of this thread, I will refrain from engaging further on this topic. If I’m mistaken about who you are, I apologize. But I don’t think that I am.</p>
<p>@ Logicalidea. You said "This would be a blatant violation of the Kalven Report. No doubt UChicago would be happy to have Obama, but if he did what you are proposing, the University would be violating its own policy and drowning in hypocrisy. " If you did not mean this to be “hiring former politicians” then what are your criteria for when it is ok to hire former politicians and when it is not? Their profile? I would draw your attention again to Levi, possibly one of the highest profile political actors of his day. Attorney General is not dog catcher. And Attorney General for the president who followed Nixon was a particularly high-profile position. </p>
<p>Second, with regard to Jamie Kalven and John Hope Franklin, I am not lecturing you, but you have misread what I wrote. I said that they expressed the view that divestment was not inconsistent with the principles of the Report. That is correct. In fact, Franklin was particularly eloquent in saying that genocide is precisely the kind of political activity that fell within the Kalven Committee’s understanding of what kind of the exceptions there should be to the general principle the Report stated. As I read the report, it sets out a general idea: No general University involvement in politics – and it sets out the idea that there will be principled exceptions to that idea. Both the general idea and the exceptions are the principles set out in the Report.</p>
<p>Yes. I realize I engaged again. Sorry… sometimes I don’t know when to stick to my guns.</p>
<p>Logicalidea:</p>
<p>I’m unclear on your points. The Kalven Report does indeed include notions of social responsibility. According to the Report, while free inquiry is highly prized, when paramount social values must be maintained, free inquiry can be tabled. </p>
<p>The issue with Zimmer is that he did not feel a genocide correlated to “paramount social values” that should override the goal of free inquiry. I disagree with this view. Many others disagree with this view. </p>
<p>The Kalven Report, to me, doesn’t seem out of touch with modern day notions of social responsibility and free inquiry. I’m not sure why the policy itself should be revised. Can you point to other university policies that function more smoothly? Can you point to specific sections of the Kalven Report that you feel are out of touch or extremist? The Report seems quite sensible to me, as long as it is interpreted reasonably. </p>
<p>Again, to me, your criticism is with the administration, and that’s fine. You seem to be calling for a significant change in the administration, which is also potentially merited, but the document itself seems flexible enough to maintain relevance. Revising the document to emphasize “corporate social responsibility” much more could encroach upon free inquiry too much. Put another way, if Columbia focused much more on social responsibility than free inquiry, controversial and bigoted Iranian president Ahmadinijad could not have spoken on campus. This would contravene, in my opinion, the role of a university.</p>
<p>Logicalidea - I’d like to hear your response to my post (#21) above. I’m also curious to note the language you think is needed to revise the Kalven Report suitably. Again, the more I read it, the more I see it as a pretty well reasoned set of guiding principles. If there are errors or specific sorts of revisions you’d make, though, I’d appreciate hearing that.</p>
<p>As I said in the other thread, I see no <em>necessary</em> conflict with the Kalven Report if there is an Obama Presidential library at the U of C – even one headed by an ex-President. My arguments were laid out there, so I won’t reiterate them. Have a look, if you really are not familiar with the thread.</p>
<p>As for whether the Kalven Report itself is so flawed that it should be rethought, I wonder what your ideas for a revision would be. I agree with Cue that you seem to have a problem with its implementation. And of course, there are arguments to be made against the ideal of objective scholarship and the thought that there is a clear enough line between scholarship and politics that the Report espouses to allow the principles of the report to be implemented fairly. </p>
<p>But, if those are the arguments you are making, I think it is incumbent on you to suggest what a better Kalven Report – or its replacement – would look like.</p>
<p>Right. What Cue said. :-)</p>
<p>By the way: There are already “wings” of the university where certain ideas are not, as you say, “allowed”. Just try to go to the folks in evolutionary biology and argue that “creation science” should be taught in their classes. Yes. You will say, but general scholarly views are not the issue, political views are. But you can find those too. Sexuality studies, for instance, would have a hard time with the idea that sodomy should be punishable by law. That’s a political view that excludes others. </p>
<p>And the Kalven Report, I think, contemplates that partisan political views will be held, studied, and even advocated by people at the University. Where it draws the line is for engagement in politics in general <em>by</em> the University as a collective. Again, the example of Stanford is instructive – because it has an institution that is affiliated (Hoover), that is dedicated to the legacy and ideals of a president (Hoover), and pursues those aims consistently. And yet, it is pretty clear that Stanford itself is not espousing those aims as an entire collective body. </p>
<p>You can argue that Stanford has a different academic culture. And I agree. But it is not Stanford’s culture that is at issue, it is merely whether the institutional arrangement that exists there poses the kind of problem you think an Obama library or initiative headed by Obama would pose at the U of C. I think Stanford presents pretty good evidence that it would not. </p>
<p>I’m not saying – to be very clear – that presidential library or initiative could <em>never</em> be created that would violate the Kalven Report’s principles. Just that there is a good reason to believe that such a beast doesn’t have to.</p>
<p>Logicalidea:</p>
<p>Could you point me to the specific policies that guide Stanford or Columbia (e.g. their “mission statement”)? Unfortunately, I can’t really find any clearly delineated principles, outside of quotations by administrators or some language in the “about” portions of their website. I can’t really find what their “official” policy is, which again, lends credence to the idea that the policy is probably broad, and considerable discretion probably lies at the hands of the administrators themselves. </p>
<p>I’m hesitant to add “stronger language about the University’s social responsibility” (whatever that means) precisely because of the myriad ways such language could chill future speech/inquiry. </p>
<p>Corporations, of late, have added much stronger language regarding social responsibility, but corporations also willingly curb speech, and it’s certainly not within the purview of corporations or other such organizations to encourage free inquiry. Universities are different.</p>
<p>I’d also advise against your approach because the reasoning seems awry. To use a legal analogy, misapplication of good law does not compel changes to the law. Rather, evidence of misapplication should encourage appropriate application in the future. An attempt to change the good law itself could have extremely negative consequences, and does not seem prudent. </p>
<p>If the Kalven Report was problematic, I’d agree that revisions are needed. I worry very much about how a Report with “stronger language about the University’s social responsibility” could be applied by administrations in the future. Administrations with worse judgment than the current one, armed with a less flexible, revised Report, could have due license to quell speech and inquiry quite harshly on campus. I would really lament a UChicago which actively pushed out speakers/thinkers who did not jive with the “stronger language” of social responsibility inserted in a newly revised Report.</p>
<p>(Also, from your post above, you are quite critical of Zimmer, and I agree with that. He’s made some very, very questionable decisions. At the same time, I don’t think it’s the governing principles that are at issue - its the administration. Again, making the Report more strongly worded, especially with a questionable administration, could backfire resoundingly. The Report itself should be flexible, and you are advocating a Report that is, in fact, much less flexible. I don’t know why you’d want to hand a more rigid Report over to an administration that’s lacked good judgment in the past. This is not advisable as an option.)</p>
<p>Logicalidea:</p>
<p>You think the current administration is bad. Why would giving them a more rigid report rectify the ongoing injustice, and not potentially lead to greater injustice in the future?</p>
<p>My key contention is: I don’t think revising the report will rectify the ongoing injustice. In fact, I think, given the track record you’ve outlined for the administration, giving them a more rigid set of rules could only increase injustice in the future. The problem lies with the discretion of the administration, not the guiding principles. </p>
<p>Why would a more inflexible doctrine rectify an administration that has shown bad judgment in the past? Such a doctrine could, in fact, allow the administration to amplify the ongoing injustice, especially as they’ve shown the propensity to interpreting moderate language in an extremist way. </p>
<p>I worry about giving more extreme language over to extremists.</p>