@JHS, the link I provided a couple posts ago from the UChicago Law website definitely cites that then-Dean Baird was the one who reached out to Obama, so you are correct on that. Obama began his affiliation with Chicago Law as a fellow and later (the next year?) as a teacher.
“The future President came to the attention of the Law School when Michael McConnell, ’79, a professor at the Law School at the time who is now a federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, told then-Dean Baird about an impressive editor at the Harvard Law Review who was doing an excellent job editing McConnell’s submission. Baird reached out to Obama and asked him about teaching. Having already made plans to write a book on voting rights after graduation, Obama refused the offer. So Baird took a different approach and offered him a Law and Government Fellowship, which would allow him to work on his book and would perhaps lead him to develop an interest in teaching. Obama accepted the offer and began the fellowship in the fall of 1991. At that time, he also practiced civil rights, voting rights, and employment law as well as real-estate transactions and corporate law as an attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a position he held until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2005.”
Going back upthread to what @HydeSnark said about the existence of two universities - a “phantom” UChicago (we’re diverse and inclusive and the valiant protectors of free speech!) and the “real” UChicago (suppress and turn away from student concerns, lots of problems) –
It’s a great point, but isn’t this the job of any U. president - to advance and further the interests of a “phantom” University to a wealthy (and eager to donate) base? Especially during a campaign - isn’t that the entire point for an adroit top administrator - to basically sell a version of the school the wealthy want to hear about? In truth, running a U. is messy - but (especially when fundraising) the point is to create the appearance of a tip-top, smoothly running ship.
If anything, Zimmer deserves top dollar because the unrest hasn’t yet hit Chicago - so he can maximize fundraising in a universe where fewer dollars go to Chicago. Contrast this with the messiness and public controversies found at, say, UPenn during their last campaign (NY-Times front-page coverage of the mental health/suicide crisis at Penn, lots of unrest and divisiveness in the student body), or Harvard (a messy, public trial about admissions, lots of unrest about finals clubs, student frustration).
Those schools rode out the controversy to the tune of billions of dollars - $4.3B for UPenn’s last campaign, and $10B for Harvard’s campaign.
Zimmer has been able to create an environment where the unrest and disatisfaction (and concern about his hypocrisy) - is kept to a minimum, and the “phantom” accolades (high US News rankings, glossy news stories in the NY Times) keep coming in.
His board has to be amongst the happiest in higher ed - fairly little strife for a top-end U., and lots of laurels pouring in.
That’s a job well done - for the purpose of the job Zimmer has - no?
What’s wrong with a controversial speaker showing up and the event triggering protests? The university hasn’t come out against free expression - it’s come out against violence, shouting down, intimidation and other contemporary means of expression meant to silence. They have clarified this issue pretty reasonably. And it wasn’t “Zimmer” who came up with it as the statement came from the faculty committee meeting on the subject. As with any notable or crucial issue, they used the university’s standard procedures to deal with it. Now, working behind the scenes to beg Milo or Bannon not to show up . . . . hmm. Was hush money involved?
The job of a president is to run the university, not the college. The latter is the job of Boyer. Zimmer has a definite interest in the College, of course, for many reasons: 1) t’s a huge money-maker now and over the long-term; 2) it produces a ton of smart influential graduates who can lead and make positive change. But he doesn’t spend all his time thinking about the College or the undergraduates. He has a College Dean to do that.
@Cue7 I think you have HydeSnark wrong. HydeSnark’s “phantom” UChicago is Zimmer pandering to right-wing plutocrats, presenting the University as a bastion of un-PC free speech, with intellectual rigor (not diversity) its key value, while the “real” UChicago is just like every other elite university. People care a lot about diversity, there are plenty of PC norms, there’s a fair amount of left-wing student activism. His claim is that Chicago doesn’t actually stand for the things Zimmer promotes as what it stands for.
(I think he or she is right that there’s a gap between image and reality, but I also think that he or she fails to appreciate the extent to which Chicago is a little different, and in ways that are consistent with the image Zimmer markets, even if that image is in no way a fair depiction of everyday reality.)
@JBStillFlying Some of that story doesn’t quite add up. In 1990-1991, when Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, Geoff Stone was the dean at Chicago. Doug Baird didn’t become dean of the law school until the 1994-1995 academic year. Which is not to say that he wasn’t active in recruiting and vetting new faculty, but he would have been doing it under Stone’s aegis. I do note that McConnell is another very bright, very conservative scholar who was impressed with Barack Obama.
In complex institutions the role of the various players is dictated by the structure of things. Chicago undergrads probably have more power and get more attention than ever they did in my day simply because they are more numerous. But, in the end, the role of undergrads is necessarily limited by their being very young, not yet possessed of much knowledge and being at the very beginning of an educational process in which for a long time they will be the acted-upon, not the actors. Time also matters: All students, grad and undergrad, are briefly passing through the institution, whereas faculty and staff and administration are there if not quite in perpetuity then for more or less lengthy periods. Alumni, especially the wealthier ones, are also part of the ongoing community, at least if they choose to be. It is the way of the world of higher education and was ever so.
None of this is an argument that students should keep quiet and just do their homework. Protesting is a valid activity, and students can make valid points from their perspective. Nor is it an argument against the persistence of a certain undergraduate culture that has its own reason for being, which may or may not fit with the necessities of administration. I expect that all students everywhere - and not merely at the University of Chicago - have always had issues with Presidents and administrators. That’s in fact a long tradition at Chicago - I would say a part of its culture. How could it not be, if you consider the skeptical, restless and inquiring natures of U of C students at all times. @HydeSnark is as good an example of this spirit as any I can think of (though I might have been a little like that myself once).
@JHS - certainly hydesnark can speak for him/herself, but my descriptors focused on the terms Zimmer uses that raise the most eyebrows from current students. The emphasis on being a free speech champion, and then the times Zimmer has lauded the school for its inclusivity probably turn heads on campus. The remarks about intellectual rigor, honestly, serve as a solitary connector between the “real” and “phantom” Chicagos.
I think (hope?) most Chicago students feel that intellectual rigor and caring deeply about academics are indeed hallmarks of their education. Many probably see this as a distinguishing factor for the school.
Anyway, the larger point is that any top administrator has to construct this phantom U. that is then sold to those with deep pockets. That’s a big part of what a president does. Zimmer has been lucky because there really hasn’t been much public strife that undermines his development of the phantom Chicago.
(I’m being a little hyperbolic in my language - Zimmer doesn’t sit there dreaming up lies to tell about the U. - but I think you get my point.)
@JHS - regarding Obama, I’m just going off the law school’s own webpage on the subject.
“HydeSnark’s “phantom” UChicago is Zimmer pandering to right-wing plutocrats, presenting the University as a bastion of un-PC free speech, with intellectual rigor (not diversity) its key value, while the “real” UChicago is just like every other elite university.”
This isn’t quite correct. Harvard, for instance, restricts free association by not allowing students to join finals clubs (or whatever they are called).
@marlowe1 - agree. And protest is part of UChicago’s identity!
The Geoff Stone description of the matter, as I recall it, went something like this: “I was Dean of the Law School when I heard about this brilliant young African American man, who had been President of the Harvard Law Review and had just come to Chicago and was living in Hyde Park. I sought him out, was impressed by him and convinced him to teach in the Law School.” There may have been some details he omitted or that I do not remember now about time-frames and the negotiating of terms, but I do remember clearly that Stone, in his own account anyhow, saw Obama’s coming to U of C Law as his particular achievement, and he was rightly proud of it. Of course when all that happened nobody knew what this young man’s future would be.
@Cue7 the “phantom” university is a bit of an oversimplification. As you pointed out, running a university is messy. There are plenty of examples on campus of academics doing their own thing according to their own conscience. The big difference is that they aren’t forced to conform to some higher-up “more enlightened” conscience mandating behavior and speech. Everyone is supposed to be forming their own judgements, not paying homage to the fashionable group-think that’s been hitting campuses over the past several years. Of course professors who feel that a trigger warning might be appropriate are free to issue one (this is always one of @HydeSnark’s examples of “hypocrisy”). What separates UChicago from other universities is, for instance, that they aren’t MANDATED to do so. Some might, and some might say “buck up and be an adult.” No consequence for either. Nor are they mandated, as another example, to refer to someone by his/her preferred gender, as UMN was considering last fall with firing or expulsion as consequence for those who failed to fall into line (UMN ran into a little hiccup called the First Amendment so not sure what exactly happened with the issue).
Also, as many older posters know, and have pointed out, UChicago’s recent “free speech” schtick is really nothing new or different. Hannah Grey, at the very least, basically made the same statements when she was president.
On another note, apparently the true “discoverer” of Obama remains a deep mystery, with much revision of history contributing to the confusion.
I would hope that the administration would give out clear warnings ahead of time not to. And the repercussions that will occur if they do, and that that cameras will be recording. And if some students still do so afterwards, they should be penalized to send a very clear message.
We don’t need UChicago to be as dysfunctional as say Middlebury.
From the Report of the Faculty Committee on Freedom of Expression:
“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”
UChicago also affirms that disruptive speech is not “protected” speech:
“Disruptive conduct may itself be a form of speech, but that does not mean that it is a protected form of speech. Like other forms of civil disobedience, disruptive conduct may lead to disciplinary consequences for those engaged in such conduct.”
These are just common sense statements, guys. Unfortunately, most college administrations are too wimpy to make them. So, in this important distinction, UChicago is not like the other schools. BTW, they ALL have big benefactors - and some at those other schools are even “right-wing.”
Nice words, but HydeSnark is telling us that on the ground that’s not really true on a day-to-day basis, or it’s no more true than it is at other institutions. And that the administration knows if they really tried to push it the campus might blow up, and look as or more “dysfunctional” as anyplace else. (Middlebury? What happened at Middlebury? I thought that was the preppiest, least confrontational place going.)
I don’t know if that’s true. It’s not exactly my image of Chicago either. I believe there is a stronger culture of civility and respect in disagreement there than elsewhere, that at Chicago people are able to have meaningful debate in situations where elsewhere they are just screaming at each other and trying to shut each other up. But HydeSnark is a thoughtful observer of lots of things, and he/she (they?) has more first-hand knowledge than any of us. It’s an opinion I take seriously.
Yes, but some of us have children there now, so we are not completely uninformed.
My D would like to see Brannon, as would some of her friends, not because any of them agree with his view, but because Bannon is clearly an intelligent person who was able to see an opportunity and used it to have extraordinary political influence for some time.
I wonder what makes some UChicago students think they have the either the wisdom or the right to control what their peer students can or cannot listen to.
@JHS , let me relieve you of your uncertainties: I have laid actual eyes on the legendary creature called @HydeSnark. We are dealing here with the masculine gender.
Google “Middlebury Charles Murray” to get the story of what happened on that campus. I too value Snark’s opinion regarding UChicago student culture, but I would also like to see it put to the test, with a speaker of the stature of a Charles Murray. I would be very very disappointed if anything like what happened at Middlebury happened at Chicago - a cacophony of vulgar and mindless shrieking and shouting down inside the hall making it impossible for Murray to speak about a subject unrelated to his controversial writings about intelligence, in a context in which an adversarial interlocutor was on stage with him and he was prepared to take questions from the audience, followed by an outright attack on him and his interlocutor as he and she were leaving the hall, causing her to be hospitalized.
I am not naive enough to think that students at the U of C are unaffected by the same currents that caused that event at Middlebury and similar ones at Yale, UCB and other elite institutions. I rest my faith on Chicago students having imbibed a slightly different ethos: No one who has come to Chicago to read the books of the Core could be capable of such things. If a minority sees it otherwise, then, as @hebegebe says, it will be the responsibility of the Administration to make it known that there will be consequences to such actions. I would also hope that the majority would make its own views known, not in support of the controversial speaker but in support of his or her right to speak. What is it they say about virtue, truth and freedom dying when the good remain silent?
This phantom university exists not in peoples imaginations, but it is as real as the real university being described.
“Open discourse?” Yes, absolutely compared to other top schools like Berkeley and Yale where college kids are pampered and their hurt feelings are protected. These types are still in Uchicago, they are catered to especially when no one is inconvenienced, but when push comes to shove everyone knows that their feelings should not overrule reason. Does it happen all the time? No, but the belief that it will happen, in times when it really matters, persists universally. To cite the existence of inclusion initiatives does not nullify the fact that the principles of engagement that were established by the faculty are very clear on this one.
“Intellectualism”? Not all are intellectuals nor should all be. But we all know it is valued. And its value relative to other characteristics, is what matters. Especially when compared to how this is valued relative to other characteristics in other schools.
There are not phantom. One may argue that they are marginal… but I would argue that that what happens on the margins are what really matters?
…but at what point do you deny someone a forum to speak when there views are so reprehensible and destructive as that they should not be entertained. Certainly there are some ideologies that fall into this category (e.g. concepts including the sterilization of certain groups, etc.).
