“I don’t know if U of Chicago officially recognizes/sanctions Greek life or not”
They do, and you’re right.
So U Chicago has issued a provocative statement that goes against the current tide of many similar colleges which have canonized the “safe space” concept.
What’s new? U Chicago is famous for provoking intellectual debate. It’s known for it, it’s good at it, and the degree is prized for it.
If you don’t like it, don’t apply. U Chicago gets plenty of applications every year. Your application won’t be missed.
Yes.
Like you said, some students are seeking edited educations.
Similarly, some students are seeking a degree without ever doing coursework. Some students are looking for a spouse and nothing else from their time at college. Some students want to sneak a pet into the dorms.
Some students want a lot of things. That neither means that a lot of students want those things, nor that the college they’re at feels any obligation to give it to them.
TL;DR: That’s a vacuous reason for claiming it isn’t a strawman.
I am hearing feedback on twitter -re this letter
one of the groups most upset right now about this is the Campus Sexual Assault Survivors Network - they claim they have a huge problem w the administration on transparency/ admin has been slow and non compliant on addressing sexual violence on campus and investigating incidents… that the same dean who wrote the letter regularly refused meetings with students including those working to improve sexual assault policy… they said the U Chicago is under investigation right now by the Dept of Ed Office of Civil Rights bc of its history of not supporting survivors of sexual assault… they said this is sending a message to victims that you won’t be safe…
Also on Black twitter- the talk is about who this letter is welcoming - certainly not black students or minorities who frequently complain to administration about hearing racist remarks/slurs from students - they feel they problem on campus runs much deeper than a safe space… they feel this is a dog whistle to white supremacy groups that they will be welcome on campus… worried about just who gets to decide who the campus speakers will be…
And this prompts me to repeat the questions I posed in a prior post somewhere ~#346-7
And this also brings up another crucial point missed by anti-PC supporters of the letter.
Colleges/universities granting a speaker the platform to speak at a college/university function confers great legitimacy based on the institution’s brand/reputation notwithstanding the obligatory disclaimers implying it does otherwise.
Why shouldn’t university members…including students have a right to protest the speaker or to get the admins or groups to reconsider inviting speakers who rehash long discredited theories such as flat earth, creationism/intelligent design, genocidal denialism, Lysenkoism, etc. Especially when rightly or wrongly, the institution will be judged in critical part…by the speakers and the content/ideas they espouse by virtue of the implicit endorsement in conferring the platform to speak at a college/university function.
That’s not to say that college’s don’t have the right to say…invite an advocate of Lysenkoism to speak at one of their functions. However, if they do…many outside the university and some within may wonder at the lack of good insrtitutional judgment and be legitimately concerned about the institution’s intellectual reputation being turned into a laughingstock among legitimate scholars/scientists.
Yes. That’s EXACTLY what U of Chicago wants to attract. White supremacy groups. That’s the sure method to rocketing to number 1 in the USNWR and becoming the destination of choice for smart kids everywhere. Why, I hear that if you join your local KKK you are a shoo-in!
Some of you are just out of touch with reality and letting vivid imaginations run out of control. Yes, a campus with historically strong Jewish representation in students, faculty and administration is all about dog whistles to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Uh-huh.
Again, there is nothing new here at all. There is absolutely no change in policy that I am aware of.
Here’s a list from UChicago’s website of some of the official statements that UChicago has made about free expression. The list mostly goes back only about 7 years. There are many more earlier statements that didn’t make this list. If memory serves (and in my declining years it may not), former President Hutchins wrote a famous speech on free expression back in the 50’s that’s been quoted from literally thousands of times by other university presidents.
Anyone who is affiliated with UChicago who didn’t understand that this is a core value of theirs simply wasn’t paying attention.
One wouldn’t expect the administration of the university to issue invitations to speakers from white supremacy groups.
But a student organization might do it.
@Pizzagirl I don’t know- I would have agreed with you before this year when white supremacy groups were relegated to their rightful place but they are being courted by some this year and are gaining traction… I don’t think it is beyond reason considering this environment for black groups to voice that concern … many jewish students and groups have had swastikas painted on their dorm doors, building walls and even laundry facilities at several campuses including ivys this year…
Then “they” are just idiots.
This conversation has degenerated into nonsense.
I’ve found this thread a fascinating read. There have been thought-provoking posts on both sides of the issue, and I’m still not quite sure where I stand.
The link provided upthread that I thought was most interesting detailed how Chicago student body leaders and the Republican group on campus are reacting to the letter. It seems that the campus itself is divided, just as we all are here. It would be interesting to hear the debate on the ground there.
The student body leaders brought up how the outgoing student president was treated last spring when he allowed students the access to occupy adminstration offices. I remember reading about that last June and thinking the adminstration was heavy handed. I’m wondering if this is what triggered this letter.
From the link:
"Tensions reached another peak this past May, when then-student body president Tyler Kissinger faced the possibility of expulsion for allowing his peers to enter and occupy Zimmer’s office in protest.
“The administration is far more fearful of free inquiry and expression than any students we have encountered.”
In the wake of these incidents, Holmberg said the school has used private police officers to prevent students from entering the administrative buildings or engaging with university leadership.
“In a very real sense, administrators are the only ones being coddled or protected from uncomfortable situations,” wrote Holmberg. “The administration is far more fearful of free inquiry and expression than any students we have encountered.”
When groups are inviting Charles Murray to speak on inferior races you can’t say that their fears are unfounded and nonsense …
“Some students want a lot of things. That neither means that a lot of students want those things, nor that the college they’re at feels any obligation to give it to them. That’s a vacuous reason for claiming it isn’t a strawman.”
So a trend isn’t worthy of opposition unless it’s universal? Or at least, it has to cross some line between “some” and “a lot” before I can comment on it? If I critique a phenomenon when it affects 1%, or 10%, of the population, then I’m setting up a straw man?
Nope. A straw man is a phantom. You’re claiming that the law students I cited are the fringe, not that they are imaginary. If you’re right, the fringe is real, and it’s worthy of criticism before it spreads to the mainstream. That’s not a straw man.
You know how there are those on the right who are paranoid enough to believe that all our freedoms are being taken away, that we are one stop short of Sharia Law being instituted in this country, and that any attempt to have even the simplest gun control measures is akin to the government marching into our homes and demanding all guns be turned over? You know how we roll our eyes and snicker at such people because they are just paranoid beyond all reason and seeing conspiracies everywhere?
Some of the views expressed here are merely the left-wing version of that paranoia. Omg U of Chicago is going to abolish the Japanese Student Association and invite David Duke to be the commencement speaker and turn a blind eye to harassing behavior!
Whack job is whack job whether right or left.
Here is an interesting Civil Libertarians take on the letter
https://studentactivism.net/2016/08/26/a-civil-libertarian-argument-against-the-university-of-chicagos-dean-of-students/
“A university truly committed to academic freedom will allow its professors to decide for themselves whether to use trigger warnings, and will foster open and unfettered discussion as to whether they should so. It will also recognize that students who choose to agitate for the adoption of such warnings are themselves engaging in acts of free speech and deserving of the protections afforded by the principles of academic freedom.”
“The letter, sadly, acknowledges none of this.”
“…we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial…”
“Here too the letter reduces a complex, multifaceted question to a fatuous soundbite. Are there many people really arguing that a university should “cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial”? Not in my experience, and I pay quite a bit of attention to this stuff. No, the letter is here misrepresenting the position it argues against, and in so doing it papers over the most interesting questions it raises.”
“Should a university invite speakers who are bigots? If so, under what circumstances? Who should decide who is invited to speak on campus, and who should determine how student money is allocated to bring such speakers? Does a student club have an obligation to go forward with an invitation it has extended if it later comes to regret it? What are the proper limits of dissent and protest and disruption when an obnoxious speaker appears?”
However, a school education or a profession does not override the right to practice one’s religion.
Therefore, one can exempt oneself from a module in medical school. which goes against one’s religion. For example. I know someone who was exempt from performing abortions, as he would never perform one, and would not partake in one. Actually, I know there others, but I never met them personally, but knew they received an exemption not to partake in that module.
I also know a couple religious lawyers who do not accept gay clients. They are pretty open about it and no one says a word and their business is booming, as they are excellent at their jobs.
Oh please. A bunch of protesting losers prevented other students from hearing from Condoleeza Rice, by all accounts an incredibly accomplished woman, because they disagreed with some of GWB’s policies. That is the very definition of special snowflake - heaven forbid they listen and learn something from a person who thinks differently from them. People like that aren’t worthy of an elite college education. What kinds of losers need to be protected from any opinion not their own?
I think my grandmother used to say it this way: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
This is how I see the UChicago letter - as trying to get in front of something that it sees hurting intellectual development at other elite colleges and it wanted to make sure that its students and especially oncoming freshman are REMINDED that UChicago is different and has always had a different policy in this regard.
All the admin really needed to see is the behavior at Dartmouth, Yale, Princeton, Oberlin, the Claremont Consortium etc. and decide not to want that type of behavior governing how students at UChicago interact with each other or with admin.
UChicago admin is not lost that with social media this is a monkey see -monkey do world at this point, which is operating at warp speed.
@cobrat I personally would be very interested in listening to a speaker who really still believes in a flat earth. I always wonder what makes such people tick and how they justify their positions. How do they manage to just ignore science? What are their personalities and educational backgrounds like? Isn’t anyone else curious too, even if you don’t agree with their ideas? Does anyone else watch TV shows about true crime or psych thrillers just to try to understand the criminal mind, even though you despise murderers?
I would even be interested in listening to a speech by a KKK member, although I would not want to glorify one with an invitation to a college because they stand for hate and violence. However, I would still like to understand why they continue their despicable beliefs.
A psych major could write a paper about an unusual or distasteful speaker. My own curiosity about how people think keeps me reading certain CC threads, like this one. (I wanted to be a psych major, but Dad wasn’t big on that…so I did a Psych minor instead.)
College is a great time to listen to many points of view and formulate your own.
Not always, especially when the right to practice one’s religion may conflict with one’s job obligations or effectively conflict with the rights of those they serve as customers/public.
For instance, a friend who worked in a postal office recounted a colleague who spent so much time on the clock proselytizing to colleagues and postal customers that work productivity not only drastically declined, but his supervisor/regional head received a torrent of complaints about his behavior from colleagues and customers.
When he tried challenging his termination on grounds the USPS violated his right to practice his religion because proselytizing was a critical part, the employment court judge effectively laughed his case out of court.
The judge also pointed out his actions not only violated his terms of employment as a public employee(not allowed to show open endorsement towards one religion or political group while serving the public/in areas visible to the public), but also violated the religious rights of postal customers/colleagues by continuing his actions even after being told they weren’t interested in his religious spiel.
I also recalled a case where a private Christian HS had issues having some science credits accepted as such by some universities including the state system because they insisted on covering and privileging Creationism/Intelligent Design over Evolution. Caused a serious issue with their graduates…especially those with pre-med/med school aspirations.