Zimmer Brings Cancel Culture to UChicago

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

Earlier today brought news that a group of 150 intellectuals had condemned the close-minded cancel culture sweeping America in an Open Letter in Harper’s Bazaar.

Later in the day it became clear UChicago has joined the cancel club:

Chicago Sun-Times:

University of Chicago removes two campus tributes to Stephen Douglas
The university has taken down a bronze plaque of Douglas, and a stone from the Old University of Chicago. Both are being moved to the university library’s Special Collections Research Center.

University of Chicago removes two campus tributes to Stephen Douglas
The university has taken down a bronze plaque of Douglas, and a stone from the Old University of Chicago. Both are being moved to the university library’s Special Collections Research Center.

The plaque, in Hutchinson Commons, features a bas relief of Douglas and an inscription noting that Douglas “generously contributed to the founding of the first university in Chicago,” referring to what is now called the “Old University of Chicago,” established in 1856 and shut down in 1886.

The stone, a donation from the “Old University of Chicago,” was on the wall of the archway between the university’s Classics Building and Wieboldt Hall. It had been part of Douglas Hall, erected in memory of Douglas, at the “Old University.”

The objects were removed last week, according to a university spokesperson.

There have been protests over Douglas’ ties to the school. One group, The Case for Reparations at UChicago Working Group, has argued the university and the “Old University” are one and the same, meaning the current university is, according to the group, founded on money earned from Douglas’ slave plantation because he donated land to establish the “Old University.” The group has demanded compensation from the university, including reparations for descendants of slaves.

Zimmer denied that connection, writing in his email: “Douglas died in 1861 and had no connection to the University of Chicago that was founded in 1890 as a new institution with a distinct mission.”

The Working Group said it had not demanded the removal of the Douglas items: “Instead, community organizations have been demanding a focus on gentrification, policing, education, housing, and health care. Until those harms have been healed the university’s past remains an open wound.”

It remains unclear whether the university plans to remove the other stone from Douglas Hall on its campus, outside Cobb Hall.

2

I don’t have a problem with the removal of statues/objects from prominent places to a museum or other repository of historical artifacts. I do have a problem with the destruction of these types of objects. I don’t consider what UChicago did here as cancel culture.

3

There are actually many reasons nowadays to remove to safety those objects that are targets for vandalism or destruction. But if @CrescatScientia wants to have a discussion about UChciago getting all squishy in the “new order” we can begin with their decision to remove the title “Master” from the resident hall head job description. A few years ago that title was changed to “Resident Dean.”
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2017/8/13/announcements-list-includes-new-dorm/

Thankfully, last night at the webinar I noticed that Prof. Wild is still the “Master of the Humanities Collegiate Division.” NB: I have a Master’s degree; actually, I have two of them. And I’m not about to switch to something uncontroversial like “Specialist” LOL. I’m a Master - deal with it, world. Anyway, UChicago is likely not to retire any of the academic titles. At least I hope not. However, I’m personally not adverse to re-titling the “Bachelor’s” degree to “Baccalaureate” - not because the latter is more “gender-neutral” but because it’s more cool.

4

UChicago to me is following an appropriate and measured response, not reactively.

There is a new generation of active minds that view history with more nuance; they are the ones that will carry UChicago’s greatness forward and I support that.

5

‘Batchelor’s Degrees’ discriminate against spinsters - and Masters Degrees discriminate against Mistresses (although, wives may be ok with that!)

6

Disturbing and disgusting. The left-wing cancel culture is at it again.

If we’re consistent, we must remove all mention of Martin Luther King because of his rampant womanizing. In light of the #MeToo Movement we must expunge his hateful memory and stop observing a holiday for him.

These same arguments are used against George Washington, who was a greater man than any snowflake alive today.

Not that I’m a huge fan of Stephen Douglas, but is the whole Old University of Chicago tainted–to remove the stone?

While the claim that the Old and New University of Chicago were seamlessly the same institution is questionable, nonetheless, this link is interesting:

https://www.uchicago.edu/features/20090119_mlk/

From its founding, the University of Chicago was unique among the nation’s top universities in its willingness to allow students of color and women to pursue advanced studies. Between 1870 and 1940, 45 African American students were granted PhDs, more than at any other institution in the nation. In the first decade of the 20th century alone, nine African Americans earned undergraduate degrees, while five more earned graduate degrees.

So now this progressive institution is treated as racist and its memory must be wiped out.

Zimmer is as bad as the silly, shrieking Social Justice Warriors that infest campus.

7

Ahh, the tyranny of present-mindedness and, to quote a great Marxist, “the condescension of posterity.”

8

Boyer’s book details the “old University of Chicago” and it’s pretty clear that Douglas really had little to do with that institution as well, other than donating the land and perhaps relating some ideas for a grand university. His entire involvement was viewed controversially by Baptists who were fundamentally opposed to slavery. Regardless. The current University of Chicago is a separate institution with a separate founding. It has a titular affiliation with the old place and perhaps some later supporters who enthusiastically embraced the new. It also shares a Baptist zeal for education and mission. None of that is disputed or controversial, of course. Not sure if Boyer mentions this, but calling this 2nd institution the University of Chicago seemed to have more to do with the desire for this particular city to be identified with a great university than it did any desire for the new university to identify with the prior (which suffered an ignominious demise). To me it appears to be be more a “let’s try this again and do it right this time” than an attempt to carry forth a specific legacy.

Here is Zimmer’s e-mail to the campus (as an alum and parent, I did not receive this; one of my kids forwarded to me):

"To: Members of the University Community
From: Robert J. Zimmer, President, and Ka Yee C. Lee, Provost
Subject: Removal of Stephen A. Douglas Plaque and Stone
Date: July 7, 2020

On June 26, we wrote a message to the campus community to express the University’s commitment toward building a stronger, more inclusive University of Chicago.

As one step in this ongoing effort, we directed the removal of a bronze plaque of Stephen A. Douglas in Hutchinson Commons and a stone from the “Old University of Chicago,” which had been mounted in the wall of the Classics Building. The plaque was a gift from the University of Chicago Class of 1901 to recognize the earlier university, which was built on land in Bronzeville donated by Douglas but failed and closed in 1886. The stone was donated to the University of Chicago in 1927.

As John Boyer, Dean of the College and author of The University of Chicago: A History, notes, Douglas died in 1861 and had no connection to the University of Chicago that was founded in 1890 as a new institution with a distinct mission. Douglas profited from his wife’s ownership of a Mississippi plantation where Black people were enslaved. While it is critical to understand and address the ongoing legacy of slavery and oppression in this country, Douglas does not deserve to be honored on our campus. Both the plaque and the stone are being relocated to the University’s Special Collections Research Center.

The University of Chicago denounces racism in all forms and is committed to making positive and sustainable change on issues of racial bias and inequities."

I agree that Douglas doesn’t deserve to be honored on the campus as he really had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, his overall legacy has been controversial - at best. Perhaps they could have removed this silly plaque a generation or two ago when it was clear that the gifters from the class of 1901 had well passed on. THAT would have shown some forward thinking. Waiting till now is just a cheap way to virtue-signal. They didn’t seem to care about it one way or the other for decades. Refuse to believe that they only just now realized that Stephens had married the wrong girl. Or - worse - maybe they had rightly resisted caving into the mob in the past but now are afraid not to.

The stones should stay as they were gifts from the old university to the new. Made in a spirit of good will, they should be displayed as recognition that in 1892 the new university “got it right.”