Long live purple. If we don’ts start becoming rational pragmatists driven by issue resolution, we are doomed.
@andyinhishead “Hi, Is Chicago a Democrat or Republican school? I thought it was economically sound but from the sounds of this thread many students are liberals. Does anyone know what the percents are?”
Ummm… liberal does not mean “economically unsound.” What an odd thing to say.
@denydenzig “According to the Heterodox academy in the 15 years between 1995 and 2010 Universities went from leaning left to being almost entirely on the left.”
Many would suggest that this reflects a change in the “right” more than anything else. 15 years ago the leading politicians on the right were pragmatic conservatives like Bob Dole. The Rush Limbaugh/Fox News/Matt Drudge/Breitbart pull on the GOP was much less, the Tea Party phenomenon had not yet arrived, extremist politicians like Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan did not yet hold any sway.
Except on a few narrow social issues like gay rights, I don’t think the universities have changed that much at all. The definitions of left and right have changed a lot.
I would be very interested in HydeSnark’s comments (or those of any other current student) as to whether there are instances of political bias or posturing coming from the profs themselves. In my days, which included the middle stages of the Vietnam war, there were always a few very obvious political profs who wore their views on their sleeves, primarily on the matter of the war. One of the most eminent of these was Hans Morgenthau, who delivered ex cathedra remarks in the lecture hall as well as as a speaker in public forums. There were also some very engaged younger profs who were somewhat pied pipers for the whole SDS contingent of the student body. However, these were exceptions, even in the humanities and social sciences. If anything, I felt that several of the profs I had went out of their way to make the case for religious belief in part as a corrective to the obvious lack thereof in most of their students. They wanted us to think a little more deeply about this and to understand the historical and cultural importance of something that appeared then (not so much so now) to be fading from our hearts and minds. More astoundingly I recall our writer in residence, Richard Stern, saying in a poetry-writing class that you can’t really appreciate the Cantos of Ezra Pound without having read the work of Milton Friedman. Long before he won the Nobel Prize Friedman got a lot of respect at Chicago even from those, like Stern, who were political liberals. The U. of C. has always been a place for mavericks and has always valued brilliant original minds. I believe and hope that culture continues in the classroom today.
Here’s something to consider: Middlebury had rules on the books for respectful dialogue etc. that apparently the admin. didn’t even follow. Isn’t the question “Is Chicago immune to the Middlebury experience” really about whether UChicago admin. would allow a speaker event to get out of hand like that? Given the discipline report they issued just in the wake of the incident (perfect timing!) it would seem unlikely.
Sure, the students might be very poor examples of slogan-shouting firebrands. But University of Chicago undergrads have held demonstrations, sit-ins, and occupations before - some many decades ago, others more recently. The prospect of a few - if allowed - shouting down a speaker or even inciting a small riot, is definitely w/in the realm of genuine possibilities. The real questions to me would be how far does the administrative body allow that to go? When/where does it draw the line, and what happens once that line is crossed? Seems that the school has definitely issued statements to answer those questions so the big challenge is whether it’s true to its word. My guess is “YES”.
@ThankYouforHelp I think both the left and the right have changed and become more extreme in their views. You mention the right, but this has also happened on the left. It used to be that most on the left used to be classic Liberals who championed free speech. Now the left doesn’t care about free speech as much as it cares about other issues. In fact when speech is seen as impeding any of these higher causes, it is quickly jettisoned. There is a reason even comedians like Chris Rock, Jerry Sienfeld and Bill Maher, none of whom can be called right wing increasingly refuse to perform on college campuses. College campuses have become increasingly intolerant to views that don’t abide by what the new left considers morally correct.
We really do have a problem on college campuses right now in terms of diversity of opinion. Again I want a healthy mix of left and right on campus. I don’t want an over abundance of right wing students and profs either. That would be terrible. Both sides are necessary to have interesting dialog. We don’t get much of that now on most campuses.
Here is an incident that might provide a clue. Last year’s student body president helped others (including non-students I believe) get into a secure building during a protest. He was charged with creating an unsafe condition, and faced the threat of not being able to graduate:
I am sure current students can describe the incident in more detail, but from an outsider’s perspective, it seems that the administration struck the right balance. They put the fear of expulsion into the student, demanded he behave the rest of the time, but ultimately did let him graduate.
@hebegebe One of these days, they are going to have to followup with a disciplinary action that has some teeth to make students realize that they can’t do such things. Prosecution of outsiders, expulsion, suspensions and other sanctions against disruptive students must happen to prevent incidents like the one where “a bunch of idiots just barged into a dining hall one day and walked on the tables yelling while other students were eating their food”
If they don’t make an example of some kid, the message will not get through
@denydenzig - Yep - because the next student body pres. knows that being entrusted with keys to the building won’t result in expulsion should he/she violate that trust. What’s to prevent this from happening again, given the outcome last time? If they expel the next student, the University looks capricious.
Perhaps occupying the admin. building on the eve of graduation can become a beloved tradition.
@JBStillFlying Great point. Although, my guess is that folks who will think the University is capricious if they expel a student, already think the University is run by “Trump” 
Anway, even if they don’t expel, I hope they at least suspend disruptive kids and remove them from campus for a few quarters and let them ponder their behavior.
Just as a reminder and for comparison purposes, the two-week occupation of 1969 resulted in 42 expulsions and many, many more suspensions. However, no wiki page exists, probably because the administration turned the whole thing into a non-event by doling out real consequences.
Actually the thing that struck me about that incident was that at every university I’m familiar with, admin buildings (at least the ones that house the offices of the President/Deans/Provosts) are unlocked and accessible to students during regular business hours. A university president should be willing and able to engage constructively with students over grievances. And grievances escalate when administrators aren’t accessible and responsive. Responsive doesn’t have to mean caving to student demands, but it does mean listening, considering, problem-solving, explaining. Not locking people out.