^^ I guess they’ll denied when there is nothing of value to gain from such a speaker, as law professor from UChicago Geoffrey Stone said to white nationalist, Richard Spencer: “From what I have seen of your views, they do not seem to me to add anything of value to serious and reasoned discourse, which is of course the central goal of a university,” Stone wrote to Spencer.
@JHS Thanks for translating me into College-Confidentialese. I really appreciate your first paragraph in #84.
[/quote]
How so? Obviously the orientation of the administration is publicly different in terms of their public posturing but the arguments about the student body is laughingly unconvincing and mostly just wishful thinking, at least using my own experiences as a measure of concordancy. I’m not saying that UChicago is the same as other schools, simply that the university that Zimmer markets is imaginary.
This is a fun thing for people to argue about because you’ll never really get an answer. We haven’t had an event like what happened at Yale or Middlebury to test it. If Charles Murry came to UChicago, tons of students would be protesting. I don’t think it’s particularly unimaginable (or even particularly unlikely) that students wouldn’t try to shut it down. The idea that there wouldn’t be widespread outrage if a Resident Dean sent out an email telling people that they should go out and dress in blackface is even more laughable - students absolutely would be calling for their resignation. As it happens, housing explicitly tries to avoid stoking the culture wars (almost certainly with Yale in mind) and all of our controversial speakers have mysteriously not shown up, as I pointed out later, so we’re never going to find out who’s right. There have been flashpoints - activists occupying Zimmer’s office a few years ago, for instance, or protests around grad school unionization. Heck, someone comes into the Maroon every other day to call us all liberal snowflakes and once every so often students will try to get Humans vs Zombies banned for trivializing gun violence. But for the most part, UChicago has avoided conflict as much as possible and kept the facade going.
My son and his roommate have pretty polar opposite views of government and other heavy topics, but they’re mature enough to know that one is not necessarily the only viewpoint, and the other’s should be respected. They also good friends now and will continue to be roommates next year. So I guess I’m just saying it is possible to live in harmony.
@uocparent Sure, I’ve seen this too. But I find it extremely difficult to believe (though I don’t have any real evidence to back it up) that every roommate pair between a conservative and a liberal devolves into war at Yale or Middlebury or Berkeley. And I’ve seen the opposite here, too, where roommates can’t get along because of their beliefs.
But you don’t need a huge activist population to be skewered as a “snowflake school” or whatever they want to call it by the media. All I am arguing is this:
- UChicago has the activist population and political will to protest in ways similar to that has been seen at other schools
- UChicago administration actively cultivates an image that implies that is impossible
- UChicago administration is very scared of snowballing protests because it will break the illusion and hurt their image with certain donor types
- Therefore UChicago administration avoids antagonizing the activist population and will probably not appoint Condoleezza Rice to succeed Zimmer
Note that this means that I am not arguing:
-UChicago students are not intellectually curious
-UChicago students are all liberal
-UChicago students all hate conservatives
-UChicago students are identical to other school’s students
Hope this clears up some misconceptions.
“1) UChicago has the activist population and political will to protest in ways similar to that has been seen at other schools
2) UChicago administration actively cultivates an image that implies that is impossible
3) UChicago administration is very scared of snowballing protests because it will break the illusion and hurt their image with certain donor types
4) Therefore UChicago administration avoids antagonizing the activist population and will probably not appoint Condoleezza Rice to succeed Zimmer”
@HydeSnark How does your statement #2 even make sense, given that the administration has posted what it would do if such occurs? Doesn’t that imply that they believe that #1 could indeed be likely?
Most parents and donors are indeed fed up with escalating “protests” that turn disruptive and violent. But when you look at those cases, the administrations in question pulled back from effective action and allowed it to spiral out of control. UChicago says they would not. Wouldn’t the threat of expulsion or prosecution temper the energies of those inside the university who are prone to such activities?
What happened when Spicey came on campus? Don’t recall that the demonstrations went further than . . . demonstrations.
Also, I’m having a bit of a difficult time wrapping my head around student activism devoted to shutting down speakers they don’t agree with, and the number of Canada Goose jackets seen around campus in a given day. The two just seem a bit antithetical. But given the numbers of undergrads, perhaps there’s plenty of all types.
How have recent trends - ED admission comes to mind - changed student activism on campus? Are UChicago students able to rely on fellow students from within the university community, or are they depending more on those from outside?
@JBStillFlying it doesn’t take a large number to shut down speakers, in fact I’d guess less than a hundred which is a little more than 1% of the undergrad population. Also, unlike Berkeley, you don’t have a large activist population in Hyde Park like you do in Berkeley (many who may have no association with the University).
@CU123 - it’s not hard to bring in student activists from other schools in the area, if such is needed. If less than 100, that’s about 1.5% of the undergraduate population LOL. Not a very impressive turnout of activists. @HydeSnark might be implying a far greater number.
Well compared to Berkeley, Hyde Park is a veritable fortress of conservatism. You don’t want to be anywhere close to Berkeley if you have a conservative agenda or risk life and limb. They take there activism very seriously.
@CU123 I attended college in the bay area and knew quite a lot of conservatives at Berkeley. And lots of liberals. Guessing it’s a lot more liberal now than in the '80’s but still - this is the school that shut down Jeane Kirkpatrick’s talk back at that time. Berkeley is Berkeley.
Returning to the main topic, I think most of us agreed that Obama would make for a great UChicago president, even if he takes it up just for a couple of years … but we need someone on here to pass the idea on to the Board, as it might take several years of convincing before he agrees 
They’ll have to start now if they want him by the mid-2020’s.
Other than the Obama issue, I think one of the reasons it’s difficult to predict much about UChicago at this point is the uncertainty that exists about the city of Chicago. As of right now the city has immense challenges in terms of the budget, safety, economic equality, and so on–the population of the city’s in fact decreasing. So as much as Zimmer and the administration do, I really hope the city as a whole makes a turnaround, as that will help the university just like NYC’s current popularity helps out Columbia and NYU. Here’s to hoping the new mayor achieves that!
As the city crumbles around them, maybe they can salvage the institution by renaming it Barack Obama University. They should offer that as a carrot to get Obama to agree to run the place. :))
City of Chicago is not crumbling. It may not grow as fast as some Sun Belt cities but for sure it is still growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP
I am sick and tired of the biased narrative that Chicago is going down the drain and people are getting murdered everyday in downtown. There are a lot of new and exciting new neighborhoods popping up all around downtown. And most of the homicides are committed unfortunately in the urban slums far away from the Loop.
What is the best performing Dow stock in the last 2 years? Boeing. Where is Boeing headquarters? Right here in Chicago. It has no plan to leave Chicago any time soon.
Everyday when I go to work at the Loop, I am not worried about being shot. Minus 20 degree wind chill? Yes. Gangster warfare? NO.
Chicago, however, has always had that tough image. A good amount of the city burned down at one point. In the 30’s it was Capone and Dillinger. In the late 60’s - riots. The 70’s - Bad Bad Leroy Brown. In the 80’s, Council Wars and Operation Greylord. Also, the entire bevy of IL state police, CPD and local SWAT teams were at one point after Jake and Elwood Blues. I still miss the likes of The Penguin. They don’t make nuns like that anymore.
@85bears46 Totally agree. Chicago is a great city. World class restaurants, theatres, museums, architecture, sports, the Lake, Fortune 100 companies. And it’s eminently more liveable and down-to-earth than NY, Boston, DC, SF or LA, IMO (and cheaper too). Although the winters may toughen you up, the summers are usually great. Also, contrary to popular belief, the murder rate is far from the highest in the country. And if you don’t deal drugs or participate in gang activities, your chance of being murdered are well below average 
Chicago is my favorite U.S. city - wish I still lived there!
Fact: Chicago is not a dying city nor is it in decline. There is a ton of gang violence.
Fact: Chicago (and Illinois) is in the worst financial state of any of the top 50 cities and the state of Illinois is in the worst financial state of any of the top 50 states (I added the word top for symmetry.)
Fiction: You will be shot dead as soon as you cross the Indiana/Illinois border.
Fiction: The city and state will soon go out of business and close it’s doors forever.
There is some impact to the things you think about Chicago. Only a Chicagoan will tell you your fears are unfounded. While I’m a huge proponent of UChicago and believe that the benefits far outweigh the negatives, I’m not thinking I’d move to Chicago if I would have the option. Would I go to school there? Absolutely. But why would I want to move into a situation where I’d have to pay for the historically bad mistakes the city and state have made. I don’t see a solution in my generation that would release the burden of paying for those mistakes if I moved there. Are great restaurants worth the increased taxes? If I had to drive through certain parts of the city if Google Maps suggested a certain route, would I follow it blindly through Chicago? Nope! These are real issues that should be considered.
However, if you want to get in my opinion the best education in the US (or world), would living temporarily while not making a ton of income be worth it? Oh yeah!