Why I Ended the University of Chicago Protest Encampment

Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.

By Paul Alivisatos

The Wall Street Journal

May 7, 2024


As president of the University of Chicago, I ended the encampment that occupied the University’s Main Quad for more than a week. The Tuesday morning action resulted in no arrests. Recent months have seen tremendous contention over protests on campuses, including pressure campaigns from every direction. That made this a decision of enormous import for the university.


When the encampment formed on our campus, I said I would uphold the university’s principles and resist the forces tearing at the fabric of higher education. I didn’t direct immediate action against the encampment. I authorized discussions with the protesters regarding an end to the encampment in response to some of their demands. 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.


Some universities have chosen to block encampments from forming at all or ended them within an hour or so. We had the means to do so. Immediate intervention is consistent with enforcing reasonable regulations on the time, place and manner of speech, and it has the advantage of minimizing disruption. Yet strict adherence to every policy—the suppression of discord to promote harmony—comes at a cost. Discord is almost required for the truth-seeking function of a university to be genuine.


Protest is a strongly protected form of speech in the University of Chicago culture, enshrined in the Chicago Principles for a reason. In times of discord, protest serves as a mechanism for democratic societies, and places of reason like universities, to find a way back toward dialogue and compromise. This has value even if protests result in disruption or violate the rules—up to a point. When a protest substantially interferes with the learning, research and operations of the university, when it meaningfully diminishes the free-expression rights of others—as happened with this encampment—then it must come to an end, through dialogue or intervention.


Therefore, it was a crucial decision whether to seek a dialogue to resolve a disruptive protest. Some will argue that the moral hazard of even holding such discussions is so severe that they should never be undertaken at all—that no agreement could possibly be legitimate if it originated from these circumstances. Others will say such dialogue should always be sought. I believe dialogue may be appropriate under certain circumstances, provided that protesters come to it openly with an understanding that the consequences of their policy violations will be reviewed evenhandedly. The same applies to discipline now that the encampment has ended.


So I authorized the opening of dialogue with the protesters, even though that extended the number of days the university was disrupted. I won’t describe the sequence or the content of those discussions, since we agreed that our exchanges would remain private unless and until we reached a favorable conclusion. During our substantive dialogue, there were some very difficult moments, but also moments of progress. The student-protester representatives offered analytical arguments and made powerful statements; their faculty representatives and liaisons also made important contributions. I believe that the administration representatives showed respect for their interlocutors and came to the discussions with genuine openness and a willingness to look for ways to make it work.


Why then didn’t we reach a resolution? Because at the core of the demands was what I believe is a deep disagreement about a principle, one that can’t be papered over with carefully crafted words, creative adjustments to programming, or any other negotiable remedy.


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.


Underpinning the demands was a call for the university to diminish ties with Israel and increase ties with the Palestinians in Gaza. In short, the protesters were determined that the university should take sides in the conflict in Israel and Gaza. Other demands would have led to having political goals guide core aspects of the university’s institutional approaches, from how we invest our endowment to when and how I make statements. Faculty members and students are more than free to engage in advocacy on one side or the other. But if the university did so as an institution, it would no longer be much of a university.


As the depth of this philosophical difference became clearer, I decided to end the dialogue. I yielded on some time, place and manner policies and allowed some degree of disruption in favor of protest, regardless of viewpoint; engaged in dialogue with those who were disrupting the university so long as they were prepared to face discipline. But there is no way I would ever compromise on institutional neutrality.


Mr. Alivisatos is president of the University of Chicago.



Why I Ended the University of Chicago Protest Encampment - WSJ

Challenging One-Sided Discourse and A Call for Academic Integrity

15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.

The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.

College DEI programs can be saved, but they need to change | Opinion

17 Apr, 2024
By Jim Martin The Charlotte Observer April 23, 2024 Just as DEI seems poised to die, there are promising signs that its original goals of diversity, equity and inclusion may yet be restored. Small but influential bands of faculty at Harvard, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Chicago object that DEI’s original appeals to conscience got distorted by zealots whose political agendas were less lofty. These professors are proposing reforms based on lifting up students and faculty from disadvantaged minority backgrounds, without harassing or despising others. Recent years have seen a colossal failure for corporate and educational institutions where DEI was manipulated into a war against meritocracy and high standards. Corporate leaders soon saw this was counterproductive. Enthusiasts in academia reveled in it. Some saw an irresistible opportunity to exploit those who, for whatever reason, had missed key advantages of nurturing family, sound education and supportive communities of neighbors. Instead of directing resources to help deserving individuals succeed in fields that had seemed closed to them, DEI got warped into a horrid excuse that they were victimized by others whose success was the unjustifiable result of “privilege,” twisting that word into a curse. Instead of healthy aspirations for these so-called “oppressed victims,” they were made to feel unfairly injured. Their difficulties were attributed to a system that unjustly rewarded rivals, now accused as “oppressors.” Diversity’s contortion was reinforced with conformity at some schools, as candidates for faculty positions were required to show total allegiance to its divisiveness. Equality of opportunity was transfigured into equal outcomes, as grade inflation qualified too many students to graduate with honors. Inclusion became exclusion, with angry suspicion disrupting the vital unity of teams and the community of scholars. DEI even provided a substitute religion with its trinitarian dogma, profession of faith and proselytizing fervor. Its priesthood badgered sinners to confess, recant and repent. Catechisms provided convenient guides for virtue signaling. Excommunication awaited dissenters at some schools where thoughts, words and gestures were monitored by young acolytes. How fitting, for the old Latin word for Roman “gods” was “dei.” Widespread failure of DEI distortions needs a reform movement to revive its fundamental principles. Instead of inciting hatred and class warfare, let’s promote high standards and self-discipline. Instead of blaming lack of achievement on supposedly unfair privileges of others, let’s offer tutoring and encouragement. Instead of rejecting achievers as scorned oppressors, let’s insist that more study time improves subject mastery. It will take fresh commitment to what DEI was originally proclaimed to mean. Or it can degenerate into defending the indefensible way noble ideals were transmuted into divisive insults. My alma mater, Davidson College, should help lead this effort to restore diversity, equity and inclusion as worthy, achievable goals, based on trust and personal commitment, not on contemporary infatuation with cynical theories of identity politics. In August, Davidson will welcome its inaugural Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Fresh from a similar position at Dartmouth, Chloe Poston will find an opportunity to redirect emphasis away from the negatives of America’s recent past to positives for the future. We haven’t met. She may not see the need for deep reform just yet. I can express hope with optimism, since her doctorate is in chemistry, a discipline guided by systematic evidence, not hostile feelings. She shouldn’t be prejudged based on missteps of others. It won’t be easy to get it right. Experience has shown what works and what doesn’t. If she’s a reformer, willing to take on the partisans, she’ll need support and encouragement from faculty, students, administration, trustees, and yes, even old alumni like me. Davidson earned distinction as the first private college in the Carolinas to craft its own version of the Chicago Statement, a commitment to freedom of expression. Beyond any ambitions of DEI, diversity of viewpoint is the true measure of freedom, without which no one has real academic diversity, equality of opportunity or useful inclusion. Davidson’s leadership is needed again. Jim Martin, a Republican, was N.C. governor from 1985-93 and taught chemistry at Davidson College from 1960-72. He is a regular contributor to our pages.  Universities are figuring out that DEI has been distorted | Charlotte Observer
Show More
Share by: