The University of Chicago, as usual, striking the right balance....
Nicholas A. Christakis@NAChristakis
33 views
Apr 30, 2024
~7 min read
Advertisement
1
The University of Chicago, as usual, striking the right balance. Worth reading in full. It is exactly right.
President Alivisatos’ Note on the Encampment (April 29, 2024)
Dear Members of the University Community, Just a few hours ago, a group of students established an encampment on the Main Quad as a form of protest. This particular tactic is now in widespread use at universities across the country. At some, encampments have been forcibly removed, with police arresting students and faculty in chaotic scenes that are disturbing. At others, encampments have persisted, despite attempts to shut them down with force. In some cases, encampments have resulted in major disruptions to learning and the activities of the university community.
Free expression is the core animating value of the University of Chicago, so it is critical that we be clear about how I and my administration think about the issue of encampments, how the actions we take in response will follow directly from our principles, and specific considerations that will influence our judgments and actions.
The general principle we will abide by is to provide the greatest leeway possible for free expression, even expression of viewpoints that some find deeply offensive. We only will intervene when what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or that substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the University. These are our principles. They are clear.
Two recent examples illustrate how we bring these principles into real action. First, last quarter a student group secured university permission to cover a large fraction of the Main Quad with a massive Palestinian flag consisting of thousands of tiny colored flags. The exhibit was accompanied by signage exhorting passersby to “Honor the Martyrs,” and it was staffed by students at tables during certain hours. Those students could explain to passersby why they thought it important to feature this installation, why they thought that language was appropriate, and any other views occasioned by their installation. While this protest and accompanying message were offensive to many, there was no question that it was an exercise of free expression. It stood for weeks until the end of the approved time, at which point the student group removed it, making way for others to express their views in that space as they might see fit. This example should make it clear that we approach the issue with no discrimination against the viewpoints of those participating in this encampment. We adhere to viewpoint neutrality rigorously.
As a second illustrative example, in November, a group of students and faculty undertook an occupation of Rosenwald Hall, a classroom and administration building. That was a clear disruption of the learning of others and of the normal functioning of the University. After repeated warnings, the protesters were arrested and released. They are subject now to the University’s disciplinary process, which is still pending. In short, when expression becomes disruption, we act decisively to protect the learning environment of students and the functioning of the University against genuinely disruptive protesters.
There are almost an unlimited number of ways in which students or other members of the University community can protest that violate no policies of the University at all; the spectrum of ways to express a viewpoint and seek to persuade others is vast. But establishing an encampment clearly violates policies against building structures on campus without prior approval and against overnight sleeping on campus.
I believe the protesters should also consider that an encampment, with all the etymological connections of the word to military origins, is a way of using force of a kind rather than reason to persuade others. For a short period of time, however, the impact of a modest encampment does not differ so much from a conventional rally or march. Given the importance of the expressive rights of our students, we may allow an encampment to remain for a short time despite the obvious violations of policy—but those violating university policy should expect to face disciplinary consequences.
The impact of an encampment depends on the degree to which it disrupts study, scholarship, and free movement around campus. To be clear, we will not tolerate violence or harassment directed at individuals or groups. And, disruption becomes greater the longer the encampment persists. With a 24-hour presence, day after day, we must for example divert police resources away from public safety for our campus and our community.
If necessary, we will act to preserve the essential functioning of the campus against the accumulated effects of these disruptions. I ask the students who have established this encampment to instead embrace the multitude of other tools at their disposal. Seek to persuade others of your viewpoint with methods that do not violate policies or disrupt the functioning of the University and the safety of others.
Sincerely,
Paul
President Alivisatos’ Note on the Encampment (April 29, 2024)
Dear Members of the University Community, Just a few hours ago, a group of students established an encampment on the Main Quad as a form of protest. This particular tactic is now in widespread use at universities across the country. At some, encampments have been forcibly removed, with police arresting students and faculty in chaotic scenes that are disturbing. At others, encampments have persisted, despite attempts to shut them down with force. In some cases, encampments have resulted in major disruptions to learning and the activities of the university community.
Free expression is the core animating value of the University of Chicago, so it is critical that we be clear about how I and my administration think about the issue of encampments, how the actions we take in response will follow directly from our principles, and specific considerations that will influence our judgments and actions.
The general principle we will abide by is to provide the greatest leeway possible for free expression, even expression of viewpoints that some find deeply offensive. We only will intervene when what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or that substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the University. These are our principles. They are clear.
Two recent examples illustrate how we bring these principles into real action. First, last quarter a student group secured university permission to cover a large fraction of the Main Quad with a massive Palestinian flag consisting of thousands of tiny colored flags. The exhibit was accompanied by signage exhorting passersby to “Honor the Martyrs,” and it was staffed by students at tables during certain hours. Those students could explain to passersby why they thought it important to feature this installation, why they thought that language was appropriate, and any other views occasioned by their installation. While this protest and accompanying message were offensive to many, there was no question that it was an exercise of free expression. It stood for weeks until the end of the approved time, at which point the student group removed it, making way for others to express their views in that space as they might see fit. This example should make it clear that we approach the issue with no discrimination against the viewpoints of those participating in this encampment. We adhere to viewpoint neutrality rigorously.
As a second illustrative example, in November, a group of students and faculty undertook an occupation of Rosenwald Hall, a classroom and administration building. That was a clear disruption of the learning of others and of the normal functioning of the University. After repeated warnings, the protesters were arrested and released. They are subject now to the University’s disciplinary process, which is still pending. In short, when expression becomes disruption, we act decisively to protect the learning environment of students and the functioning of the University against genuinely disruptive protesters.
There are almost an unlimited number of ways in which students or other members of the University community can protest that violate no policies of the University at all; the spectrum of ways to express a viewpoint and seek to persuade others is vast. But establishing an encampment clearly violates policies against building structures on campus without prior approval and against overnight sleeping on campus.
I believe the protesters should also consider that an encampment, with all the etymological connections of the word to military origins, is a way of using force of a kind rather than reason to persuade others. For a short period of time, however, the impact of a modest encampment does not differ so much from a conventional rally or march. Given the importance of the expressive rights of our students, we may allow an encampment to remain for a short time despite the obvious violations of policy—but those violating university policy should expect to face disciplinary consequences.
The impact of an encampment depends on the degree to which it disrupts study, scholarship, and free movement around campus. To be clear, we will not tolerate violence or harassment directed at individuals or groups. And, disruption becomes greater the longer the encampment persists. With a 24-hour presence, day after day, we must for example divert police resources away from public safety for our campus and our community.
If necessary, we will act to preserve the essential functioning of the campus against the accumulated effects of these disruptions. I ask the students who have established this encampment to instead embrace the multitude of other tools at their disposal. Seek to persuade others of your viewpoint with methods that do not violate policies or disrupt the functioning of the University and the safety of others.
Sincerely,
Paul
2
The University of Chicago contjnues to treat its students like adults. Follow up message from today:
Dear Members of the University Community,
For more than four days, those encamped on the Main Quadrangle have expressed their views freely. I imagine there isn’t a person on campus who isn’t aware of their message. Yesterday, the provost and I met with them to better understand those views and seek a pathway forward. As I wrote on Monday, out of principle we provide the greatest leeway possible for free expression, even expression of viewpoints that some find deeply offensive, even in rare cases at the expense of some policy violations–for a time. But the encampment cannot continue.
The encampment has created systematic disruption of campus. Protesters are monopolizing areas of the Main Quad at the expense of other members of our community. Clear violations of policies have only increased. Our students have issued a torrent of reports of disrupted classroom learning. Other disruptions include repeated destruction of an approved installation of Israeli flags, shouting down speakers they disagree with, vandalism and graffiti on historic buildings, incorporating walkways into the encampment, and co-opting the University flagpole to fly the Palestinian flag.
What started as a modest encampment has grown each day. Fewer police are providing safety patrols in the neighborhoods because they are obliged to be present for the growing 24-hour unauthorized protest. Left to itself, there is no end in sight, and the disruptions will continue to mount. The encampment protesters have flouted our policies rather than working within them, despite UChicago being an institution that allows for many ways to express views.
We met with the group designated by the protesters to listen to their demands and to search for a way to end the encampment grounded in dialogue. They shared genuine and powerful statements about what has brought them to the encampment. I very much regret that we have not yet found common ground. The nature of their demands are such that we could not accede. There remain, however, numerous ways consistent with our principles and policies for the protesters to advance their views. We are prepared to support meaningful engagement on the issues that the protesters have called attention to.
On Monday, I stated that we would only intervene if what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the University.
Without an agreement to end the encampment, we have reached that point.
Paul Alivisatos
Dear Members of the University Community,
For more than four days, those encamped on the Main Quadrangle have expressed their views freely. I imagine there isn’t a person on campus who isn’t aware of their message. Yesterday, the provost and I met with them to better understand those views and seek a pathway forward. As I wrote on Monday, out of principle we provide the greatest leeway possible for free expression, even expression of viewpoints that some find deeply offensive, even in rare cases at the expense of some policy violations–for a time. But the encampment cannot continue.
The encampment has created systematic disruption of campus. Protesters are monopolizing areas of the Main Quad at the expense of other members of our community. Clear violations of policies have only increased. Our students have issued a torrent of reports of disrupted classroom learning. Other disruptions include repeated destruction of an approved installation of Israeli flags, shouting down speakers they disagree with, vandalism and graffiti on historic buildings, incorporating walkways into the encampment, and co-opting the University flagpole to fly the Palestinian flag.
What started as a modest encampment has grown each day. Fewer police are providing safety patrols in the neighborhoods because they are obliged to be present for the growing 24-hour unauthorized protest. Left to itself, there is no end in sight, and the disruptions will continue to mount. The encampment protesters have flouted our policies rather than working within them, despite UChicago being an institution that allows for many ways to express views.
We met with the group designated by the protesters to listen to their demands and to search for a way to end the encampment grounded in dialogue. They shared genuine and powerful statements about what has brought them to the encampment. I very much regret that we have not yet found common ground. The nature of their demands are such that we could not accede. There remain, however, numerous ways consistent with our principles and policies for the protesters to advance their views. We are prepared to support meaningful engagement on the issues that the protesters have called attention to.
On Monday, I stated that we would only intervene if what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the University.
Without an agreement to end the encampment, we have reached that point.
Paul Alivisatos
3
And now this update from @UChicago via @WSJ: "But when I concluded that the essential goals that animated those demands were incompatible with deep principles of the university, I decided to end the encampment with intervention." wsj.com/articles/why-i…
Specifically, "The disagreement revolves around institutional neutrality—a foundational value to the University of Chicago. It is a principle animated by the idea that authority can’t establish truth for an entire institution dedicated to truth-seeking; rather, it is the imperative of individuals to seek truth without being limited by authority. Institutional neutrality vests freedom of inquiry and speech directly in faculty and students, where it belongs." @FacultyForYale
Specifically, "The disagreement revolves around institutional neutrality—a foundational value to the University of Chicago. It is a principle animated by the idea that authority can’t establish truth for an entire institution dedicated to truth-seeking; rather, it is the imperative of individuals to seek truth without being limited by authority. Institutional neutrality vests freedom of inquiry and speech directly in faculty and students, where it belongs." @FacultyForYale
