Yali Amit, co-chair of the Committee for Open Research on Economy and Society (CORES), spoke at a student-organized forum on the Milton Friedman Institute last Tuesday. CORES decided Friday to circulate a formal petition that would require President Robert Zimmer to call a second Senate meeting on the Institute. /
Chris Salata
Click image to enlarge
Faculty members on the Committee for Open Research on Economy and Society (CORES), which opposes the University’s establishment of the Milton Friedman Institute, decided at the group’s Friday meeting to move forward with the collection of signatures on a formal petition asking President Robert Zimmer to convene a second meeting of the full Faculty Senate. They will request that the Institute be the sole discussion item on the agenda.
Although a formal petition is yet to be circulated, CORES has already collected more than the required number of signatures on a preliminary petition to force the president’s hand. Under University bylaws, the president is required to call a meeting of the full Senate at the request of at least 10 percent of the Senate membership. The Senate currently comprises roughly 1,200 University professors, and CORES has collected more than 170 signatures, said CORES co-chair and Divinity School professor Bruce Lincoln.
Although organized opposition to the Institute was what spurred Zimmer to call voluntarily the first such gathering in ten years last Wednesday, time devoted to discussion of the Institute was constrained to roughly half of the two-hour meeting. Several professors in attendance expressed disappointment and anger over what some have characterized as a concerted effort on the part of Zimmer and Provost Thomas Rosenbaum to limit discussion on what was to them the clear item of concern that most members had hoped to debate.
Zimmer and Rosenbaum delivered lengthy statements during which, in addition to the Institute, they discussed the state of the University and various initiatives. At the end of the meeting, discussion on the Institute was cut short for other business despite the fact that several professors who wanted to address the body had yet to do so.
According to CORES co-chair and statistics and computer science professor Yali Amit, although the Senate meeting offered the first formal opportunity for professors to express their opinions to Zimmer and Rosenbaum, many members “came out with a sense that in terms of making progress on the issue, we haven’t really made any effective progress except for maybe some people hearing each other.”
The latest move is an attempt by opponents to devote all of the Senate’s attention to the controversy that has dominated campus circles in the five months since the University announced the establishment of the Institute. CORES members have argued that naming the Institute after one of the twentieth century’s most ardent supporters of free markets would amount to an endorsement of Friedman’s controversial policies.
CORES will present Zimmer with the petition once it has formally collected the required signatures and will ask that a meeting be called at which “we could press for a resolution and a vote,” Lincoln said. No such provision was made for last Wednesday’s meeting. In 1984, the last time a Senate meeting was called to discuss a specific issue, a vote was taken on whether the University should divest from apartheid South Africa. The vote was followed by a mail-in vote of the entire Senate, although then-President Hannah Gray insisted that the vote would not be binding. The resolution to divest was ultimately defeated.
Administrators have maintained that the establishment of the Institute will not be reconsidered. Instead, the various points of contention that have characterized the debate between supporters and opponents have coalesced around whether the University should rename the Institute. One member of the Institute’s faculty committee, James Heckman, has publicly stated that he would to consider a renaming.
According to Lincoln, there have been informal discussions between CORES members about how to proceed with the challenge to the Institute’s name, although no consensus has emerged. “I don’t think there’s a clear strategy on that. It’s something we’ll be looking at,” Lincoln said.
Today, Lincoln will present several documents at the Council of the Senate’s monthly meeting, although he would not elaborate on their content. Although CORES does not have a specific date in mind for the next meeting of the Faculty Senate that will almost surely result from the group’s petition, his preference, he said, “would be sooner rather than later.”
Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.


Discussion
MONICA MORI
October 24th 2008 at 12:00 PM
I'm sorry to come so late to an awareness of the latest nonsense inspired by the GSB, the Economics Department, and the Law School. As a college alumna, I was deeply moved to read the names of the faculty signators to the protest against establishing a Milton Friedman Institute on our campus: they represent the best of the University. (In a former Theology Building, yet? Is this further affirmation that some mistake the invisible hand of the free market for a deity?) I regret that President Zimmer chooses to ignore the petition of the best of the University, in favor of the pursuit of $1,000,000. donations, thus continuing the long tradition of University of Chicago priorities. Could President Zimmer and the Development Office study how other universities manage to raise donations without the help of wealthy financial idealogues?
Meanwhile, may I suggest that the Milton Friedman name simply be attached to the GSB. Why not the Milton Friedman Graduate School of Business? I think that the Humanities Department could be persuaded to design a suitable statue: I personally would like one in mid-topple, like the famous statue of Sadaam Hussein falling. In these days of free market/deregulation-inspired economic collapse I think it would be most appropriate.
Meanwhile, to CORES: you go, guys!
DANIEL N. FOX
October 25th 2008 at 09:27 PM
I know I should write a scholarly article, with citations, etc., but, pending that, here is a dashoff.
The law school professor Lior Strahilevitz is the author of an article supporting the discouragement of unwanted home purchasers by the use of "exclusionary amenities". Basically he says, for instance,that if African-Americans don't play golf (surely a doubtful assumption these days) they won't pay for a golf club membership attached to a house, and thus will live elsewhere.
This is his contribution to the "law and economics" portion of Milton Friedman's market theory. He actually posits this strategy to get around the fair housing laws of the past 60 years.
I attended the University for seven years between 1947 and 1955. During those years the whole of Hyde Park was an "exclusionary amenity". The 55th St. "Point" was off limits to mixed parties, black babies could not be born at Lying In, no house could be sold to a Negro, nor an apartment rented. Many of us spent the whole time trying to end this preposterous and unjust situation. Now Friedmanites like Strahilevitz want to return us to those days, and offer, with straight faces, "market theory" to buttress their position. Name something after Friedman???