Amid the activism and strong feelings that have surrounded the appearance of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert comes a challenge and an opportunity.
President Zimmer and Provost Rosenbaum, in their letter to campus earlier this week, laid out the challenge: It is up to all of us at the University to live out our shared, fundamental values of free expression and civil discourse.
This is the opportunity: We find ourselves in one of those rare moments that rise above the busyness of our daily lives, a chance to have a real conversation about something that matters deeply to us.
Free expression is more than just a platitude. It’s what makes our common endeavor worthwhile. It is a principle we cannot compromise. And it is not easy—not intellectually, where one person’s expression can be interpreted by another as an obstacle to discourse; not emotionally, where our deeply held beliefs and experiences sometimes cry out against a particular person’s right to speak; not practically, where there are often more voices than can be heard at a single event.
We are not the first to grapple with these issues at the University. Discussion about free expression populates the pages of our history, including a 2006 message from then-Provost Richard Saller, who wrote, “The University achieves its mission not by the subtractive process of silencing opponents, but by the additive process of contestation.”
The University community has hosted a number of contentious events over time, and developed some sound precepts and practices out of that experience. We do not veto speakers sponsored by recognized groups on campus solely because of their ideas. We do not mandate that equal time be given to opposing views within the same event. Many speakers here represent a particular point of view, and in order to hear them fully, we accept that any given event may lean toward a single perspective. The diversity of viewpoints and voices emerges over time, through the rich variety of offerings here at the University and the myriad opportunities for creating dialogue.
We also recognize the fundamental value in hearing dissenting views, and we are committed to the rights of protesters to express their ideas on this campus. There is, in fact, a tradition of creative, thought-provoking protest and counter-protest here—a culture embodied by at least three separate demonstrations that took place outside Mandel Hall on October 15. As long as they proceed peacefully and safely, protesters are given wide latitude to express their views.
As an institution, we believe that protests must neither interfere with the speaker’s ability to speak, nor with the audience’s ability to engage with the speaker in question-and-answer. That belief is crucial enough that it is embedded in University Statute 21, which prohibits “conduct disruptive of the operations of the University, including interference with instruction, research, administrative operations, freedom of association, and meetings.”
We recognize the need to create a structure and space for the strong feelings that inevitably accompany some controversial events. These are natural human responses, and sometimes we need to account for them as part of our effort to promote the ideal of a rigorous intellectual exchange. We do that by creating rules of engagement and by providing support at events and elsewhere on campus.
We are committed to supporting these practices, but I want to see if we can take the conversation further. How do we as individuals live out our belief in free expression? How do we uphold our beliefs when the conversation stretches beyond our University community? How can we design one-time and ongoing events that best foster the dialogue we are seeking?
I invite you to start by looking at some of the conversation that has historically taken place at the University, gathered on a new Web page, http://news.uchicago.edu/btn/free.expression.php. I plan to address the issue at a number of upcoming student events, and colleagues across campus may be planning their own gatherings. I’d also like to hear how all of you think we should proceed. Please feel free to e-mail me at kmgoffcrews@uchicago.edu with your ideas about how this conversation should continue.
Kimberly Goff-Crews is the Vice President for Campus Life and Dean of Students in the University.
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
SIDDHATTHA GOTAMA
October 23rd 2009 at 01:35 AM
Ms. Goff-Crews:
I think, from your above piece, that your misunderstanding the feelings of many students on campus. We are all committed to free inquiry and the mission of this University, that is in fact why I myself decided to attend this school.
However, I think, you and the other members of the administration need to realize what was really going on here and face the reality of the situation instead of continuously hiding behind the ideals of a University.
First, watching the Harris School, a renowned institution invite a man officially charged with corruption and then charged by the Norwegian Court, Spain, and threatened arrest in the UK to speak about peace and ideals of leadership seems absurd. Following your logic, I believe the University would be proud to have upheld it's ideals by inviting Milosevic to speak about the value of human life and the importance of racial integration. On behalf on the Law School, of course.
Second, how dare you defend the fundamental right of expression when questions are screened before they are asked? How dare you sit in your ivory tower and watch heartlessly as people who lost family members at the hand of the man standing on our stage suffer? And how dare you have the audacity to write this piece, before you even take a second to contextualize the reaction of students? You don't see protests within the hall at any other event, so why not take a step back and try to understand why it was this time?
Finally, I have a challenge for you as well:
I will believe what you say about your commitment to free speech and inquiry the day you dare speak out and say that this University would have welcomed Joseph Stalin to speak about leadership. I will believe you when you admit that this University would have invited Adolf Hitler to speak about ethics. I will believe you when you admit that this University would have welcomed Idi Amin to speak about diversity. I will believe you when you admit that this University would have invited Saddam Hussain to speak about democracy.
According to you, we would have loved to have had them.
RIGHT TO EDUCATION
October 23rd 2009 at 03:08 PM
"We do not mandate that equal time be given to opposing views within the same event."
I think you need to check with members of the Muslim Students Association, as well as the SJP before you state such a blatant lie. Organizers have been constantly harassed when inviting speakers to campus to "be sure and get someone who can speak on the other side," rooms were denied, and in one instance, faculty advocated for other faculty to "boycott" certain student groups.
This university has seen fit to protect itself and its pro-Israel "faction," at the expense of its own students. As Dean, I would think its high time you got another perspective on these matters, and protected ALL students from intimidation.
MICHAEL
October 27th 2009 at 02:31 PM
Oh. my. god. You commenters need to stop whining about this. The President, Provost, and now a Dean have all defended the position of free speech and all you can do is ask asinine questions about why we didn't invite Hitler to campus??? Grow up and consider that sometimes those in power are in power for a reason, namely that they don't explode when something doesn't go their way. So show some respect (asking "How dare you?" isn't respect), which is exactly what she's asking you to do.
Also, Right to Education, how is that a lie? Do you understand English? Your comment in no way refutes her statement.