OP probably came onto this forum seeking not “comfort” but information. UChicago has been very clear for decades about its tradition of open inquiry and free expression. Those values were unequivocally reinforced in 2016 around the time that several other university administrations were melting down. There is an abundance of top-notch universities and colleges out there - this thread is a good reminder that everyone should look for “best fit” and not simply prestige. If OP’s daughter is truly interested she can always visit and OP should go along and seek out the needed information as well. While anonymous forums can be helpful, they really are no substitute for good ol’ kick-the-tires due diligence.
Given that this is the UChicago forum, most likely those familiar with the place will, indeed, “keep going.”
History famously has its ironies, not least in respect of this odd idea that we should be allowed to think and speak freely. The U of C has championed that idea for a very long time. When I was coming of age in the fifties and sixties it had the reputation of a dangerous place fomenting subversion. A big best-seller of the time, “Advise and Consent,” concerned the political machinations around a confirmation hearing for a possibly Communist professor. You get no marks for surmising that the school he was a prof at was that dangerous place, the University of Chicago. Who knew what crazy ideas could come from such a place! That was the very thing that attracted me to it, but it was also one of the few things all my elders knew about it and were frightened by. Two of my uncles felt the need to have heart to heart talks with me about this. What did they fear so much? That the spirit of Marxism that ranged so freely on this campus would corrupt me!
Well, in due course I did read Marx and his epigones in certain classes; did take courses from profs who were Marxists; did have friends who were Marxists; did come to see the power and truth of much of the Marxist perspective. I lived to tell the tale. Those ideas helped to open my understanding of the world. More importantly, irrespective of ideology, in thinking about them I learned to think for myself.
There are distinct parallels, though they are not without their ironies, between the repressive climate of the fifties and that of the 2020s. Thinking for oneself will always be a subversive idea and will always be under attack.
My daughter who just graduated from UChicago, would completely disagree with you.
The spirit of free discussion permeates the place. While you can find some professors that don’t get it, the administration certainly does, and they have the back of both students and faculty that discuss opposing viewpoints in a respectful way.
During the pandemic, my daughter and son (freshman at Harvard) were both at home. She was shocked at the outrageous things that other freshmen were saying on Harvard chat groups, and the shouting down of opposing viewpoints.
FYI to the OP, my daughter is center-left, and she would describe herself as being to the right of most students on the UChicago campus.
Not remotely conservative and she would be very welcome there. But as to whether your daughter would feel comfortable depends upon, as you say, whether she thinks foremost with her head vs her heart.
I agree with this 100%. And importantly, these skills are very useful after college for both personal growth and career development.
OP, your daughter my find a more comforting and self-reinforcing thought bubble at places like Brown, Yale, Columbia, and even Harvard. But unless she is going into academia, the outside world is nothing like that. If her goal is to promote her views, shouldn’t she learn to engage with those who will vigorously challenge weaknesses in her arguments?
(1) If she is planning on going to graduate school in astronomy/astrophysics, she should major in physics. She can take as many astronomy classes as she wants, but at the end of the day her degree should say “physics”. The reason is that many grad schools she will be applying to are joint physics and astronomy, and students with an astronomy undergrad degree are at a disadvantage in the admissions process.
Of course, if she has other plans, this doesn’t apply.
(2) If your daughter is so fragile that someone saying something she might not like in another building on campus is intolerable, what will happen when things really go wrong? When you’ve been waiting a year for telescope time and the one night a year it rains is when you are scheduled? (Happened to my lab partner) When your grant proposal is not funded? (happens to everybody) When the paper you thought was a masterpiece comes back savaged by a referee? (happens to everybody) When a new result makes your entire line of research irrelevant? (Done that to people ) When you have a major equipment failure right before you need to use it? (happened to lots of people, including me) When you can’t get the job you want? (Happens to more than 90% of us - it’s easier to get a job as a professional astrologer than a professional astronomer)
Science is tough. Scientists need to be tough too. Fragility is not a trait that will be helpful.
(3) I am not sure MIT is what you are looking for. Despite the attempts of the President and some students, it’s about the least woke place I have ever experienced. (And I have lived in the South). MIT is a ruthless meritocracy. They will be accepting of your daughter as a lesbian because they just won’t care. If she makes this a central part of her identity, people will wonder why she’s bothering - doesn’t she understand that there are differential equations to be solved? The reaction to most SJWs is “they should talk less and do more”. The MIT sense of social justice is “what can we do to change things” with a deep contempt for those who are content to merely “raise awareness”. The typical MIT response to an unpopular speaker is to listen to what he says, and then at Q&A time give it to them with both barrels. Overdo it if possible - don’t stop once you’ve obliterated his point.
The MIT culture holds that we can learn things from people, even if they are not paragons of virtue. (Isaac Newton was not a very nice man)
It does not sound like MIT is what you are looking for either.
Boyer has put together a treatise on the history of free expression at the university. Most of us have no historical perspective on the issue at UChicago, so this is worth a read. It’s sent to all incoming students along with the Dean Ellison letter. And every year, it sparks a lively discussion among the student body as to the meaning and value of free speech on campus.
My son, a rising third year philosophy major, has had two courses covering Marx. The latest was his Modern Phil course this spring, at which a very lively debate broke out between the prof and the grad students running the tutorials. The latter were all Marxist scholars and very opinionated on the readings and the interpretation. While he noted that they were “unusually confrontational” - this sort of exchange never happened when they all covered Kant or Hegel - my son also observed that debates about what Marx “really meant” were actually quite important; Marx has been enormously influential in the realm of social, political and economic thought so it’s crucial to understand his writings. He’s no Marxist - far from it - but opined that Marxist interpretative philosophy is just as valid as Aristotelian or Kantian interpretation.
The conflict got resolved when the prof put the rabble rousers in charge of the next lecture. The main question, of course, was whether the TA’s were now being alienated from their own labor.
Perhaps there should be a distinction between political events that may occur on campus and the general environment when one is not specifically engaged in politics. Consider the following example situations:
Anti-LGBTQ speakers come to campus and argue politics etc… Then everyone who was listening or protesting goes home. The predominant mood on campus, the local community, the college administration, and any applicable local or state government is LGBTQ-friendly/accepting. I.e. if you are not specifically engaged in politics at that instant, you can put the politics away for now and it will not affect your quality of life if you are LGBTQ.
There are no anti-LGBTQ speakers coming to campus to argue politics, etc… However, there is substantial anti-LGBTQ sentiment and discrimination on campus and the local community, the college administration is uncaring about LGBTQ students, and local and state governments have passed LGBTQ-unfriendly laws with broad support. In this case, whether or not you are specifically engaged in politics, it is more likely to be a negative quality of life issue there if you are LGBTQ.
(Of course, there are other combinations of political events and general sentiment/mood not included in the above examples.)
I live in Chicago. I know many gay kids that go there. Your daughter will be fine going there. As stated it’s a liberal campus. I won’t get into the other debates. Chicago in general the city is very liberal. In reality the students on campus won’t really care if she’s gay, straight, a dog or a cat lol… She will be fine on campus and in the city. Hope that helps.
Are “anti-LGBTQ speakers” really just “arguing politics?” And what exactly does it mean for an LGBTQ student to “put politics away for now,” as if the student’s very identity was a “political” position which is subject to debate. For example, if an LGBTQ student’s department, club, peers, and/or professors bring a speaker to campus so that speaker can disparage the existence of LGBTQ+, how could this not “affect [the student’s] quality of life?”
Colleges aren’t merely places where kids go to debate bigots, as if the bigots could ever be convinced. They are supposed to be places where students go to learn, inquire, collaborate, socialize, and to live and thrive. These things might prove difficult when the administration proudly welcomes those who would denigrate and humiliate its marginalized students.
Fortunately for the kids who attend, this seems more and more like marketing and publicity, and while parents (see above)and pundits love it, many students and professors don’t agree with the notion of putting free speech above the well-being of the students. Even one of those who helped draft the “principles” have called for a public forum to reconsider. Ironically, the UofC Administration isn’t willing to participate in a public forum questioning U of Chicago’s free speech brand. As one professor put it . . .
"Given the role that Bob Zimmer has had in advocating a very particular view—and…given that this is not uniformly embraced by members of the community, including in the faculty, we think that there should be a discussion of this . . .
One of the reasons we wanted this…is because absent a discussion, there’s a feeling on the part of a lot of people that a lot of what’s happening with President Zimmer’s advocacy is publicity.” Faculty Asked Zimmer for an Open Forum to Discuss UChicago’s Free Speech Policy. Here’s What They Got Instead. – Chicago Maroon
This is the crux of the issue. And free speech gives them the right to voice that opinion. But they don’t have the right to force everyone else to agree with it.
The presence of a bigot speaker does not necessarily mean that the campus and community overall agrees with the bigotry.
There is likely a considerable difference between a situation where bigot speakers are invited by fringy (relative to the campus) student groups (under established neutral rules for reserving spaces on campus), drawing many more protesters than listeners, versus being invited by the campus administration or mainstream (relative to the campus) student groups, drawing widespread support. In the former case, the bigot speaker is not representative of the campus or community climate, and therefore less likely to be a quality of life issue, but in the latter case, the bigotry may be widely shared, and therefore more likely to be a quality of life issue.
There will be bigots around, but what matters from a quality of life standpoint is whether they are relegated to the fringes, or if they are mainstream enough to be a quality of life problem. Note that the mere presence of bigot speakers is not indicative, since fringy student groups may invite them just to start a fight against what may be an overwhelming majority against them.
Of course, whether University of Chicago generally is LGBTQ-friendly/accepting is something that needs to be investigated on its own by the OP, regardless of what political speakers may show up.
Not sure this is the crux of the issue, unless “the issue” is the disjunction between what the Administration says and what the University does.
Take, for example, the Administration’s proud and repeated proclamations that there will no “Safe Spaces” at Chicago. This thrilled the pundits and some of the parents (see a number of posts which reference it above.). But this is not the reality on campus where such spaces very much exist. I linked a graphic above, but here is a more in depth explanation: Safe Space | Center for Identity + Inclusion | The University of Chicago
The described University’s Safe Space Program directly contradicts the Administration’s much touted rhetoric.
Or consider Zimmer’s repeated assertion that bigots like neo-nazi Richard Spencer would be welcomed to speak on campus if invited. Again, the pundits are awed at just how serious Chicago must be about welcoming even the most abhorrent views, even at the expense of the marginalized students. Of course Spencer hasn’t ever been invited, and when he sought an invitation, one of the authors of the 'Principles" turned him away, noting (accurately) that Spencer’s racist views would not “add anything of value to serious and reasoned discourse.”
Of course his views add nothing of value! That is the crux of the issue. So why is the University President out there speaking as if democracy and education are both at peril if bigots like Spencer are shunned?
When I read this a couple years ago I took it to mean in a broad conceptual sense as linked with their commitment to free speech. For example, in classroom debate or allowing speakers on campus. Not that there were literally no physical safe spaces on campus.
I agree that Richard Spencer would add nothing and he’s probably never going to be invited to speak on campus. But I prefer that people be allowed to discuss why he should or shouldn’t be invited, instead of being told he can’t be allowed to speak under any circumstances because some segment of the campus population decided it.
Because that’s an easy decision. There will be other speakers who present a more difficult one and his statement covers all situations not just the “easy” ones.
As of now, you have six posts on this thread (tying for the most) and you seem to be both passionate about it, and very certain about how things actually are (“it’s marketing “) despite accounts from people who have worked there or relayed recent accounts directly from our children.
Just wondering, what is it that makes you so certain that you are right about this, and that all of our collective experiences are wrong?
The principles of the Chicago Statement and the Kalven Report are quite likely to be submitted to robust criticism in years to come. At what time was anything at this school left uncritiqued? At what time were there not dissenters? Yet these principles are in the nature of constitutional documents at this University, and constitutions are not re-examined lightly or simply at the urging of a handful of dissenters.
Dissent is in the DNA of the place, and there is definitely opposition to free speech principles within the faculty. Entire departments have gone rogue on the subject. Check out the English Department’s public statement of its mission and why it is now closed for business to white applicants. (Naturally, there is a long cc thread on this.) Those dissenters have not been shut down. The English Department has been allowed to keep its statement and its policy. Individual profs and particular groups within the University are free to promote safe spaces. That’s how it rolls in a pluralistic institution.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a group of six hardline profs (including, of course, one from the English Department) were seeking to force the issue of re-examination of the free speech policy. That will doubtless happen at some point when there is a general dispostion in all the constitutent parts of the University to do it. In the meantime the dissident profs are free to canvass, discuss, and agitate as they see fit. As Geoffry Stone suggests, they could, if they wish, devise a public lecture or other forum to make their case. That’s what freedom of discussion looks like. Those profs were likely weaned in the era of participatory democracy: they equate free speech with acceptance of their demands. That’s a category mistake packaged as a disingenuous debating point. A finer reading of Aristotle would have cured the mistake.
Large public statements are important in the way that overarching statements of principle are always important - they give defintion to the ideals of an institution. They do not impose a regime of strict enforcement, and they leave open many vexed and granular decisions for consideration as they arise. At some point soon, however, some campus organization will invite a controversial speaker and another organization will announce its intention of disrupting that talk. That will be the moment we find out whether the Chicago Statement is a marketing ploy or a real thing. The general discussion this will generate on campus will likely be more important than anything said by the speaker. l have no doubt that there will be robustness aplenty and no place will be safe from it.
@mtmind is relying at least partly on the Chicago Maroon, which is not the most accurate or informed source of information. Also, she might be making a logic error: just because Richard Spenser can be invited to speak, doesn’t mean that Geoff Stone or anyone else has to invite him.
The university has been clear about this issue. They brought together a faculty advisory committee in 2017 to develop protocols of behavior when speakers come to campus, so that people aren’t shouted down, blocked, threatened, or otherwise deprived of their freedom of expression. These and other recommendations have been codified in the administration’s disciplinary policies to help ensure that those who wish to invite unpopular speakers have the freedom do to so without harrassment. The university is one of the few institutions of higher ed to take the matter as seriously as it has, and it’s for this reason that it’s ranked #1 in terms of freedom of speech and academic freedom across the board. It’s the reason that the “Chicago Principles” are not named something else and the reason that other schools have adopted these and not some other document.
To repeat from above: the broad term “safe space” should not be confused with the university’s statement on the issue. UChicago is clear that its academic mission is not to be compromised by “safe space” thinking that shuts down speech. The Center of Identity and Inclusion is free to use whatever terminologies it wishes to in order to reach out to its target groups. And it does. That’s perfectly OK. What it can’t do is impose restrictions on speech, research, curricula, etc elsewhere in the university. Unlike other universities, UChicago has not weaponized the Center for Identity and Inclusion with investigative authority. There’s your difference.
I think it’s worthwhile to say that though the U. of Chicago places a higher level of importance than other universities of its level on free expression, it certainly isn’t immune to the progressive sensibilities of the day. (Note the English Department’s mandate about new PhD. candidates.) Even the report (Largest ever free speech survey of college students ranks top campuses for expression) cited in this discussion is a relative ranking that implies a big gap between Chicago’s score and the maximum. In other words, it’s the “winner” in a very weak field where free expression is concerned.
) When you have a major equipment failure right before you need to use it? (happened to lots of people, including me) When you can’t get the job you want? (Happens to more than 90% of us - it’s easier to get a job as a professional astrologer than a professional astronomer)