Free Speech Article on Slate about the University of Chicago

[FStratford]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/when-campus-free-speech-is-a-marketing-ploy.html

The article is fairly balanced, despite the fact that its opinion is obvious from the get go. I do not quite agree though that free speech is a marketing ploy at UChicago. It is getting the university a lot of free marketing, yes, but it has too much substance to be a ploy.

I am reading the comments, and they are mostly pro UChicago - on a progressive site, like Slate, that is interesting.

I also have learned a new phrase: Poe’s Law

[kaukauna]

I would enjoy reading comments from the UChicago alumni stalwarts on the board about how the article draws conclusions, about the quality of the evidence, and about the impressions given about cause and effect.

[marlowe1]

What interested me (A.B. '67) in that piece is the connection it made between the free speech policy of the University and its branding efforts. That connection has been made before on cc, but I had not seen it in an extramural piece. I didn’t read it so much as a take-down of the bona fides of the policy (which the author, a recent alumnus himself, is at pains to describe as consistent with the values and history of the University) as pointing out a somewhat fortuitous confluence of that history and the present moment. Chicago’s perennial position on these questions hasn’t changed, but the world has changed. So is the Chicago position (with certain anomalies going unmentioned) being used to market the University? If so, does this undercut the position as a principled one? I answer the first question with a yes and the second with a no. It seems to me to be one of those rare situations in which a principled policy Is also an expeditious one. I can forgive a bit of grandstanding in a good cause.

When I myself went up to the University its reputation was for harboring Communists under the pretext of academic freedom. My uncle in Texas warned me about that, and my mother worried about it. A big best-seller of that era (“Advise and Consent”) fictionalized the political machinations behind a Senate confirmation hearing of a Communist professor at the University of Chicago. The author, a Washington columnist, must have figured that if middlebrow America could imagine a university capable of harboring a Communist, Chicago would be it. On the other hand another book of the era, William F. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale”, alleged a suffocating uniformity of liberal thought at Yale and other elite institutions (what some years later would be called political correctness) but described the University of Chicago as the one place where conservative thought could get a hearing. Go figure.

Buckley gave a talk at the University during my time there without mishap (so did Norman Thomas, Paul Goodman, Michael Harrington, Eugene McCarthy and Ted Sorensen, among many speakers on the Left). There were even some now forgotten apologists for the Viet Nam War. I once attended a debate in the Law School auditorium in which some in the audience (I was one of them, I regret to say) attempted to drown out the speaker defending the war. At that moment his debate antagonist, the famous Chicago prof, Hans Morgenthau, a noted opponent of the war, stepped to the microphone and chastised the audience: “We are members of the University of Chicago academic community. We debate things here, we do not prevent debate.” At a time when emotions ran high and denunciatory rhetoric was common, we were all chastened, and the debate continued. In retrospect I see that moment, forgotten now by probably everyone but me, as very symbolically important. Remember that a defence of the Vietnam War was considered then as off-limits and unacceptable on campus as a defence of Trump’s immigration policies would be today. Nevertheless at Chicago we defeat bad arguments with good ones. Morgenthau, himself a refugee from fascism, might have thought he was seeing the beginnings of something nearly as bad as the war itself. In retrospect I am almost as proud of the audience for accepting his rebuke as I am of him for having given it. Both were very much a part of the Chicago traditon.

Sorry for the descent into anecdote and Chicago chauvinism. You can blame @kaukauna for that!

[marlowe1]

I reckon you must be dead right, @HydeSnark, about the hypocrisy of packaging the University as being a culturally or politically conservative institution. I hope Zimmer is not doing this. I take it that you’re suggesting that his statements - and perhaps the speech policy of the University generally - amount to this. No doubt you are also right in saying that some conservatives want to read that into it. I myself don’t see it that way. Liberals ought to be the first to stand up for speech. Stone is a liberal, as is Barack Obama. To let this issue become a battlecry of the Right is a bad idea in many ways. Don’t let that happen!

Most of us who take a stand on this are primarily concerned with the “de-platforming” aspect of the matter - the shouting down, disinviting or otherwise preventing an unpopular but duly invited speaker from speaking. I see a distinction between those actions and the act of making an invitation in the first place. No individual in the University community (and certainly not someone like Stone with administrative responsibilities) has any obligation on free speech principles to invite Spencer or any other particular person. Indeed, an individual who feels such a person would contribute nothing ought not to make such an invitation. The question is always as to who decides. An individual may decide for himself but shouldn’t elect himself to decide for others. What would constitute “making a contribution to debate” cannot ever be answered definitively. However, once a debate is on, shutting it down in the way we have seen on other campuses can’t be an option at the University of Chicago.

[JBStillFlying]

@marlowe1

When I myself went up to the University its reputation was for harboring Communists under the pretext of academic freedom. My uncle in Texas warned me about that, and my mother worried about it. A big best-seller of that era (“Advise and Consent”) fictionalized the political machinations behind a Senate confirmation hearing of a Communist professor at the University of Chicago. The author, a Washington columnist, must have figured that if middlebrow America could imagine a university capable of harboring a Communist, Chicago would be it.

• I wonder if that plot was inspired by earlier charges of communism that were leveled by Walgreen in 1935 and later on by others. The Walgreen story is actually humorous: apparently his niece was discussing what she learned in her sosc. seminar one night at dinner.

@HydeSnark

The university continues to sponsor the Center for Identity and Inclusion and related programs (often with names that are hilariously antithetical to Zimmer’s professed values), as well as the Bias Education and Response Team that literally exists to enforce restricts on free speech, if the speech is deemed to be harassment or discriminatory and thus against University Policy.

• These sound rather de-fanged. For instance, here is the description on the BEST webpage: “Expressions that cause hurt or discomfort can, but do not for that reason alone, constitute a violation of the law or of University policy. Rather, the communications are assessed within the standards provided by germane University reports and policies, including the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression and the University Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct, and statements that reinforce the University’s commitment to diversity, civility, and equity http://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/university.”

Surely departments/organizations such as Diversity and Inclusion, LGBTQ Safe-Space and others are there to provide support, education and advocacy more than anything else - and what’s wrong with that? Don’t really see this as inconsistent with academic freedom.

@HydeSnark

Even more hilariously, for all Zimmer and Stone’s bravado about how Richard Spencer has a right to speak at the University of Chicago, when it actually came down to invite him, Stone told him that “from what I have seen of your views, they do not seem to me at add anything of value to serious and reasoned discourse” which is the same argument the protestors were making: we shouldn’t let Spencer speak because he’s a racist with nothing important to say.

• Well, in that response Stone also said he would defend the right of others to invite Spenser to speak. Not quite what the protesters were saying, since they wanted to ban him from speaking altogether. The former is to act within the guidelines of the university’s speech policy - the latter is to act as the speech police.

@HydeSnark

On the ground, the vast majority of UChicago professors support trigger warnings and hand them out happily in class. Despite what Zimmer says, I don’t think the atmosphere in this respect is any different from any other elite American university.

• Hmm. Here is a quote from my daughter’s first Classics of Social and Political Thought syllabus (15100): “Throughout the quarter (and year!), we will encounter unfamiliar and difficult arguments. You may find many of them novel and intriguing; others may strike you as unconvincing if not repel-lent. We will learn to ground our responses to their claims on close readings of the text and on rigorous argumentation of our own. As such, the course also aims to develop your ability to read and interpret complex texts, to do so critically and generously, and to marshal evidence for your views. We will consider how these authors defend and justify their specific claims, how these claims relate to one another and fit into their overall projects, and what broader social and political systems they are constructing.”

The above doesn’t exactly sound like a trigger warning. Are you suggesting that this is somehow an exception to the normal messaging from the College profs, or do you think her instructor is lying?

As to atmosphere, one apparent contrast is just up the street:
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/09/21/campus/schapiro-to-freshmen-people-criticizing-safe-spaces-drives-me-nuts/
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/northwestern-u-is-accused-of-violating-academic-freedom/117184

[JHS]

I think you all are being a little unfair in your ■■■■■■■■■■ at supposed hypocrisy or ideological inconsistency.

In standing for the principle of free, unbounded academic debate, Zimmer and Stone are being true both to the ideals and history of the University of Chicago specifically and to the ideals and history of universities in the West almost since such things came into existence. I think – my children don’t necessarily agree, by the way – that it’s important to do that. And I don’t mind in the least if that attracts nine-figure contributions. It should attract nine-figure contributions from thoughtful donors.

But free speech in the academic context has never been uncurated speech, a open-era soapbox derby worthy of the other Hyde Park. It starts with allegiance to basic ground rules of scholarship, fact, knowledge, and also due respect for contrary arguments and the people who make them (within the same ground rules). (The ground rules, too, can be challenged or critiqued, and often are.) The university does not have to be – and should not be – a stage set for a white supremacist to string together a series of visceral slogans to get his supporters wound up and to provoke his detractors. It does have to be a forum in which someone can defend the value of studying Shakespeare, despite the reality that there may be people in the community who consider that as essentially a defense of white supremacy. And I would say the same thing about a rant against white devils, vs. an argument why the study of Shakespeare promotes white supremacy, or why it’s worth listening to Louis Farrakhan rant about white devils.

Of course, the line between my poles can get blurred. Suppose Louis Farrakhan himself wants to give a reasoned account of his racially divisive rhetoric? Or Richard Spencer, or Steve Bannon? Somehow the academic community has to make that curatorial decision – Is the speaker up to the task? Is this going to be agit-prop, or will it increase understanding? People are going to disagree, and the border (like all borders without walls) is going to be messy. The messiness of the actual border only slightly detracts from the philosophical importance of the border.

At the same time, I think practically everyone in the university, left and right, values the goal of being more inclusive of students whose backgrounds would have led to their formal or informal exclusion in the not-distant past. And they understand that the ideal of university education is not that of Parris Island. There’s not going to be a drill instructor screaming racial and sexual epithets at you to toughen you up or force you to drop out if you’re too weak.

Students don’t have a right to be shielded from ideas that may upset them. But they do have a right to be treated with kindness and respect, and to be welcomed wholeheartedly, especially if the university would not have treated their parents that way. Faculty – and not just faculty, administrators and other students – should do everything they can to acknowledge students’ insecurity and to help them feel comfortable . . . short of protecting them from ideas themselves. There’s nothing inconsistent with a commitment to free academic speech in that.

(I’ll note that my mother was effectively driven out of law school by faculty resistance to coeducation at her institution. Some, not all, of her professors subjected her and the few other women present to constant harassment and humiliation, often to the delight and with the enthusiastic participation of many male students. At the time, that was considered academic free speech. I doubt more than a lunatic fringe on the right would support that view now.)

[phoenix1616]

@HydeSnark hits the nail on the head. Besides that the admin bends over backwards to make the College Republicans happy, which is presumably also to suck up to right wing donors and parents, I’ve never seen any implementation of the “UChicago letter” stuff on campus.

@JBStillFlying, Classics of Social and Political Thought is not the sort of class that would have a trigger warning, there’s nothing controversial on the syllabus. The times I’ve seen them are for graphic depictions of rape, which don’t show up much in Leviathan.

[JBStillFlying]

No rape touched on in Classics, @phoenix1616? Did you guys skip over Wollstonecraft? How about lynchings (DuBois)?

[JBStillFlying]

“I’ve never seen any implementation of the “UChicago letter” stuff on campus.”

The UChicago Letter says they don’t cancel invited speakers because they might prove controversial. So who’s been given an invite, then cancelled by the admin?

The UChicago Letter also says that they don’t provide “Intellectual Safe Spaces”. Most of the student support services, including the groups noted above, are under the wing of Office of Student Life or similar. Is that office involved in curricular issues? Do they have a say in what a professor may or may not choose to include in the lesson or discussion?

[uocparent]

Wow it’s amazing how something so great can be reduced to doing it for ‘perpetuating a mass fraud’ as if Zimmer were sitting around wringing his hands saying ‘mhwahaha –this’ll get ‘em, I’ll surely get lots of free marketing now!’

Seriously, I’m sure Chicago’s not the only school to take this stance, but, they are the first to ‘say it loud, and say it clear.’

And just because they have said it loud and said it clear doesn’t mean that the institution will allow outrageous speakers to the podium.

[JBStillFlying]

@uofcparent according to a link in the Slate article, it appears that 34 other notable institutions are jumping on the “Suck Up” bandwagon. Notably, Princeton, Columbia, JHU, Georgetown, Clarmont-McKenna, SUNY-Buffalo, Chapman, MSU, Mizzou System (guess the other way didn’t work so well for them ) Citadel and others have all officially adopted the University Chicago statement (or a close facsimile). A whole lot more are in process. Guess all those nebulous College Republicans, Right-Wing donors and parents have a fairly large pull

https://www.thefire.org/chicago-statement-university-and-faculty-body-support/

Part of the confusion among so many of the students is that they equate stuff like “We don’t support trigger warnings or intellectual safe spaces” with “now you are forbidden from handing those out”. That is NOT what the University Statement says, since “forbidding” would be as restrictive to speech as “mandating”. UChicago was not in the habit of micro-meddling in the academic conversation that takes place and made that clear in its statement. It did so because other universities WERE starting to micro-meddle and getting push back from their own faculty. As usual, UChicago started a trend by being what it is. When you stay the course while the winds of sentiment blow strong in one direction, and then the other, you are naturally going to look very different - even radical - in both instances.

[uocparent]

^agree with the beginning of your 2nd paragraph. You expressed it better than I can. UChicago does have lots of support for students who do need safe spaces.

[JBStillFlying]

^^Right. The big distinction is that the university doesn’t condone cutting off discussion of important or even crucial subjects because students are uncomfortable or even traumatized. That’s what’s meant by not supporting “intellectual” safe spaces. The link below demonstrates where some of this was headed only a few years ago, at Harvard Law no less. It’s very concerning. Hard to see where the shutting down the discussion benefits anyone - least of all the victims that these future lawyers are supposed to be representing. If you are so triggered that you can’t analyze a rape case or even hear the word “violate” you really need to take some time off and get to counseling before thinking of becoming a lawyer - or find another line of work altogether.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law

[uocparent]

^reminds me of lawyer I met once, big burly guy, who use to represent street gangs that use to permeate the streets of Chinatown nyc back in the day, and he said they were animals. He actually couldn’t deal any more, and was thinking of doing something else.

[phoenix1616]

@JBStillFlying trigger warnings are not standard key given for lynching, and there are no graphic descriptions of it in the book. Wollstonecraft’s VRW does not include any graphic depiction of rape. In fact, I’m not even sure it mentions rape, though I haven’t read it in a year or so.

The admin made it clear more or less immediately that nothing would happen to the many official safe spaces on campus. Their vagueness on what a safe space is is a feature, not a bug, it lets them wiggle out of actually doing anything while still making the WSJ editorial board happy.

Most current students don’t enter cynical about the admin’s stuff on this; reception on the admitted student page was rapturous. But it’s hard to remain non-cynical once you get to school and see how little it’s emphasized out of the public eye. Free speech is a running joke on campus that nobody takes seriously, from the senior profs to the undergrads. @UofCparent is a dupe and the exact target market for this stuff.

[JBStillFlying]

@phoenix1616 perhaps the student body has changed beginning with the class of 2021.They were the class considering where to apply when the letter came out.

Discussions of Wollstonecraft can easily venture into that area, although with the qualifier of “graphic” it might not be so much an issue. Students have become more sensitive to the subject so it’s not clear what exactly might trigger someone (as the New Yorker points out), Nonetheless, most profs are going to know when to give a warning and when it’s probably not necessary and their discretion can be trusted. Heck, my driver-ed teacher from 40 years ago (the dear man just passed away this week) used to give us a trigger warning whenever the required movie of auto deaths got too gory. He’d even put waste baskets around the classroom to accommodate anyone who needed to hurl - I think that was in jest, but only partly so. It was just plain common sense and courtesy to his students to give us a heads up.

[marlowe1]

@phoenix1616 or any other current student - Can you give some specific examples on the U of C campus of safe spaces, especially “official safe spaces”? I am more interested in the concrete reality on the Chicago campus than in the abstract concept. Critics tend to caricature the concept. I have a feeling that concrete examples would explode the caricature. Nevertheless, the concept does concern me in light of the long tradition of Chicago being a place of open discussion of ideas of all sorts, even rather crazy ones, and not only coming from invited speakers in lecture halls but taking place in classrooms and around dinner tables in dorms. I cherish the notion from my own days of absolutely free-wheeling and uninhibited discussion of all things under the sun and moon, with lots of disagreement and the testing of all arguments for their logic, evidence and cogency. Nevertheless, this isn’t the whole reality of student life. I am wondering if safe spaces might simply be places such as clubs and organizations of like-minded people where a student can go who wants to be out of that battle for a while and be among soul-mates. That sort of place has always been a part of campus life, and I see nothing wrong with it, unless it is now coupled to a more expansive thought that the battle itself is now a problem or that classrooms or lecture halls or dinner tables must all be safe spaces in that particular sense.

[JBStillFlying]

“Free speech is a running joke on campus that nobody takes seriously, from the senior profs to the undergrads.”

Having a very hard time believing this very sweeping generalization. We know “senior profs” at UChicago who were all for the Statement. It followed the faculty report on freedom of expression so the faculty have been involved in the issue from the beginning. Perhaps there are some loud complainers - of course, if anyone tried to shut THEM down, well, I can’t even imagine . . .

The College is everyone’s focus here on CC but at @85bears46 has noted previously, UChicago is more than just the College. There are a whole lot of faculty who are basically unknown to the College students and you really have no idea what any of those guys think about this issue. Many of them are way too busy doing productive research and tending to the needs of their respective departments to be spending much time trying to convince the College kids that “nobody” takes academic freedom seriously. Any prof. who says that, btw, is playing YOU for a dupe

[uocparent]

@phoenix1616 You just called everyone who enjoyed what UChicago is saying a dupe, including donors, universities who admired it and jumped on the bandwagon, prospective applicants, etc. You must be one of the insiders on campus who can expose it for what it really is.

I mean, sure, let’s ensure that UChicago stay on track, but it’s not that prudent to degrade the massive amount of entities that sees this in a generally positive light. The message UChicago sent was powerful and bold.

[uocparent]

^And if this results in marketing, then all the better. Anyway, the product behind it is not without substance. (I mean, seriously, UChicago is the essence of substance.)