My D23 has identified UChicago as of high interest - apparently it is very strong in her area of interest (astronomy/astrophysics) and she likes some professors and students in those departments that she connected with at a summer program. Of course at this point entering her junior year, hard to know if she will be competitive for it anyway, but she wants to visit. I am concerned that it is a conservative place where a lesbian with strong commitment to social justice and progressive politics won’t be happy/comfortable- as a mom I would prefer she stick to Northeast or Cali colleges where being lgbtq is fully accepted and her views shared by many. To be honest I have read through some threads on these forums and they have only made me more concerned. Any informed views? Thanks very much.
Hello and welcome! I would not say that UChicago is conservative at all. It seems relatively liberal to me as a parent, and I am pretty sure a lesbian with a strong commitment to social justice and progressive politics will fit right in. My daughter and - I would venture to say - almost all of her friends are very liberal. I think that being lgbtq is fully accepted there, but others with more experience in that area may have more to say. A big aspect that is different about UChicago is its commitment to free expression of all ideas. You won’t find any “safe spaces” there. You can find out more at https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/. (And I’m sure there will be more comments to come on this thread by more erudite posters than I.)
As for threads/commenters on this forum, there are a handful of very vocal adults (not students) who make up a large part of the UChicago discussion on CC. Their views shouldn’t be considered representative of those of the students or faculty. That said, I have never seen any comments here that are anti-lgbtq.
One thing you will find on both CC and at the College is vigorous debate. Students learn how to argue their viewpoint, backed up by facts and logical, nuanced thought. I have seen a transformation in this regard with my UChicago daughter. It is wonderful and impressive to behold!
I went to grad school at UofC and have been active in the alumni groups. In my experience, people are accepting of all types of lifestyles and identities. However, as @browniesundae said, freedom of speech is valued highly and lively intellectual debates are frequent.
Being LGBTQ+ isn’t a “viewpoint.” Would Chicago’s free speech code allow other students, professors, and invited speakers to question a LGBTQ+ student’s very existence?
Politically, the undergraduate student body was overwhelmingly for College alum Bernie Sanders during the presidential primaries. So IMO it’s not a “conservative” campus culture. OP, perhaps if you shared which threads on CC you read that contributed to your concerns that will help others address them specifically. Keep in mind that most posters are parents, not students.
Not even sure what this means. By all accounts the students are very kind to and supportive of one another. Have never heard of a professor questioning anyone’s “existence” but again, other students are the best people to address these sorts of questions; they know better what goes on in the classroom than parents, even parents who have/had kids there.
Brownie is correct - anyone who attends will have to get used to the idea of vigorous debate. When you speak, you will be asked to explain what you mean. What you say might be an “a-ha!” moment for the class or it might be challenged by the prof or someone else. That’s par for the course at UChicago. President Zimmer says this every year at opening Convocation: all are encouraged to contribute to the lively intellectual discussions. This does not mean that all contributions will be shown to be valid upon closer examination. It’s a continual exercise in learning to examine critically every issue from every angle, and everyone - from first year undergraduates to the most seasoned faculty, participate.
@mtmind You misinterpreted my comment, I think. I wasn’t talking about lgbtq as a ‘viewpoint’. I was talking about debate in general - academic, political, which pizza joint is the best in Chicago and on and on. That is a big part of why young people choose UChicago. They want to be in that kind of atmosphere.
This is why we can’t have nice things. 
That’s not what they meant so let’s move on.
That’s an important distinction, but unfortunately it is one that Chicago’s free speech policy doesn’t seem to make. Granted, it may be more a marketing and publicity scheme than the reality of what is happening on campus, but the site you linked indicates (and celebrates) that even those pushing abhorrent beliefs and ideas would be welcome voices at Chicago. Likewise, see President Zimmer’s statement that (alt-right racist) Richard Spencer (MA '03) would be welcome to speak at Chicago if invited.
But Chicago’s own professors do a better job of articulating the concern than I do, albeit in a somewhat different context. The following is from a letter signed my many of them with regard to the University’s decision to host Steve Bannon:
Specifically, when speakers who question the intellect and full humanity of people of color are invited to campus to “debate” their worthiness as citizens and people, the message is clear that the University’s commitment to freedom of expression will come at the expense of those most vulnerable in our community. RE Bannon at UChicago - Google Docs
But like I said, this free speech position might be more marketing the reality. For example, there are “safe spaces” despite the rhetoric . . .
That said, I’m not sure if the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality should make prospective students from potentially vulnerable groups more comfortable, or less. Either way, the OP might find this piece interesting . . .
Thanks much everyone. Would love to hear even more viewpoints and experiences. I do think that my daughter learning to debate more with her head than heart (as she tends to now) would be very valuable. However (and I appreciate and fully accept the poster’s clarification that this isn’t what they meant) there is no “debate” whether my daughter can be who she is and whether she has the same rights as everyone else’s daughters - that is just prejudice and hate speech which I do NOT want her exposed to any more than life sadly may expose her to anyway from the haters of the world. The kind of threads on the forum I was referring to that gave me much pause were the kind praising how “unwoke” (insensitive to students’ concerns?) the administration is or mocking “sjw”s which my daughter proudly is (are people at UChicago proud of not wanting social justice?). Understood that it isn’t mostly the students posting - would love to hear from some of them or parents of current students!
You might want to check out Reddit. Seems that is where a lot of chatter is with students these days.
I’ve worked at UofC, but that’s different than being a student. Anyway…
If you think that there is one single definition of “social justice” that is not up for debate, Chicago is not for you. If you think that “Your opinion doesn’t count because of the group you belong to” is an acceptable argument, Chicago is not for you. I suggest looking eastward, perhaps to schools named after colors.
Chicago would be better if you want vigorous debate: e.g. in LGBTQ+ issues, what happens if groups are in conflict? A hot button issue today is trans-exclusionary lesbians. Another is whether the B in LGBTQ+ belongs, because it assumes only two sexes. If you have strong opinions on something like these, Chicago will help you hone your arguments - at a risk of possibly changing your mind. In a way where places that favor “Shut up, he explained” as a form of discussion don’t.
(And I thought this thread would be about “where fun goes to die”)
Give it time.
Thanks all. My daughter is a super nerd so her version of fun is different and she was ok with that aspect of the school’s reputation. But yes between inviting Steve Bannon to speak (surely no one thinks he has anything to contribute to intellectual debate?) and some of the other comments on this thread I don’t think it is worth us visiting. I am sure UofC will be sobbing with its zillions and zillions of other applicants!
The University of Chicago’s policy is that the university doesn’t restrict speech. That means you can get offensive people of all stripes invited to speak. If one doesn’t like that, one should probably not apply; there are certainly many other colleges and universities that will be more accommodating about speech one doesn’t like. NU, for example, has positioned itself to be in contrast to UChicago on the subject of speech and safe spaces.
You might be misinterpreting what is meant by “safe-space” and I’d refer you to Dean Ellison’s 2016 letter for clarification: https://news.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/Dear_Class_of_2020_Students.pdf
Specifically: Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
In other words, the university does not butt in on what the faculty deems appropriate either for a topic of discussion or curriculum - no matter how controversial - nor does it police the speech of the students. That has nothing to do with the various responsibilities of the Office of Student Life which provides support for everything from LGBTQ to residential living to collegiate athletics.
This Slate article makes the same mistake that @mtmind has made - a failure to separate the academic mission of the university from its more generalized support for student living and student welfare. UChicago made huge progress over the past 20 years to improve campus infrastructure for the undergrads and increasing the functions of the Office of Student Life has been a big part of that improvement. However, as mentioned above - and unlike many universities elsewhere where a complaint about what a professor taught said can go right to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion for “investigation” - at UChicago these responsibilities have been appropriately allocated to another department. They are there as a support for student experience, not as a substitute for academic inquiry.
At least one distinguished faculty member would disagree, and provides the reason why:
In late 2016, Sean Spicer was invited to campus specifically at the invitation of Institute of Politics director David Axelrod.
The non-partisan IOP explained its reason as follows:
"With the pending inauguration of President-elect Trump, it’s vitally important to understand how his administration will approach the presidency and the key issues affecting our nation during the next four years. Our event with Sean Spicer is the first in a series of in-depth conversations we’ll be hosting during winter quarter that seek to examine the impact of a Trump presidency from a variety of issues and perspectives,” Steve Edwards, executive director of the IOP said in a statement to The Maroon. “Just as we have during the first four years of our existence, the IOP is committed to providing a forum where students can thoughtfully engage key decision makers from across the political spectrum in the same spirit of rigorous inquiry and open discourse that have defined this University and our democracy for decades. The IOP does not endorse points of view, but is dedicated to providing a forum for respectful dialogue, where different points of view can be heard and tested."
The phrase "surely no one thinks . . " is a presumption that won’t fly at the University of Chicago w/o being challenged.
@MITPhysicsAlum captures pretty well the culture of debate at the U of C. His observations are backed up by at least one survey. See
Students at each of some 55 institutions were asked to rank their own school on several indicia of free speech. They were also asked to self-identify as liberal or conservative. The U of C as ranked by all its students, liberal and conservative, was far and away the top school - scoring 64.19 as against 57.31 for its nearest competitor. The score awarded by Chicago’s self-identifying liberals (63.1) was in itself far ahead of the scores awarded by all students at all other schools. Incidentally Chicago conservatives were found to be a surprisingly small percentage (11 percent) of the student body, below that of all its peers, including even Harvard (15 percent).
What these statistics tell us is that the liberal students at Chicago may be unlike liberal students on other campuses in that they embrace free speech not simply as a policy but an actual fact of life. Harvard by contrast is ranked by its own students near the bottom of the pack (46th).
Also interesting is that though conservative students do report some unwillingness to make their views known on a campus that is so overwhelmingly liberal in orientation, they nevertheless give their school a high ranking (59.22). That is the third highest ranking given by conservative students at any school, exceeded only by two schools having much higher percentages of conservative students (Texas A&M and Kansas State) and therefore a much more conservative climate.
This data supports the impressions that most of us who know the school have: The culture of free speech cuts across all political orientations on this campus. It is in fact a powerful source of the school’s unique identity. This is not to say there aren’t failures to live up to the ideal, but that it is an ideal at all these days is the astounding thing.
I don’t believe I misinterpreted anything, nor did I make a mistake regarding the existence of “safe spaces” as the phrase is commonly understood, but thanks for clarifying that you don’t believe that “safe spaces” exist (or should exist) under Chicago’s policy. I am sure that will be of comfort to the OP.
As for the rest, I’ll just let it go. You, @marlowe1, and @MITPhysicsAlum are doing a great job of highlighting Chicago’s official position on such things. Please, keep going.
If she’s interested in schools in the northeast I’d suggest Yale, Brown, Cornell, Brandeis, Tufts and if she’s interested in LACs Haverford, Swarthmore and Barnard. The campus cultures may align more closely with your D.
Thanks much. Her interest (and quite a bit of background) is in astronomy and astrophysics and there are great schools which are very strong in that in the Northeast, including MIT, several of the Ivies, some LACs, and some women’s colleges - she is youngest of three and the older two went to NE Ivies so we will stick with that path! Thanks all.