View source for Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago


'''* Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression. University of Chicago, July 2014'''

URL = https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf

=Context=
 
"The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014 
by President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs “in light of recent events nationwide that 
have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.” The Committee’s charge was to draft 
a statement “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited 
debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.”  

The Committee has carefully reviewed the University’s history, examined events at other institutions, 
and consulted a broad range of individuals both inside and outside the University. This statement 
reflects the long-standing and distinctive values of the University of Chicago and affirms the importance 
of maintaining and, indeed, celebrating those values for the future."


=Text=

Geoffrey R. Stone, Marianne Bertrand, et al. :

"From its very founding, the  University of Chicago  has dedicated itself to the 
preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of the 
University’s  culture.  In  1902,  in  his  address  marking  the  University’s  decennial, 
President William Rainey Harper declared that “the principle of complete freedom of 
speech  on  all  subjects  has  from  the  beginning  been  regarded  as  fundamental  in  the 
University of Chicago” and that “this principle can neither now nor at any future time be 
called in question.” 

Thirty  years  later,  a  student  organization  invited  William  Z.  Foster,  the  Communist 
Party’s candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest 
from  critics  both  on  and  off  campus.  To  those  who  condemned  the  University  for 
allowing the event, President Robert M. Hutchins responded that “our students . . . 
should have freedom to discuss any problem  that presents itself.” He insisted that the 
“cure”  for  ideas  we  oppose  “lies  through  open  discussion  rather  than  through 
inhibition.” On a later occasion, Hutchins added that “free inquiry is indispensable to the 
good life,  that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they 
cease to be universities.” 

In 1968, at another time of great turmoil in universities, President Edward H. Levi, in his 
inaugural address, celebrated “those virtues which from the beginning and until now 
have characterized our institution.” Central to the values of the University of Chicago, 
Levi explained, is a profound commitment to “freedom of inquiry.” This freedom, he 
proclaimed, “is our inheritance.” 

More recently, President Hanna Holborn Gray observed that “education should not be 
intended  to  make  people  comfortable,  it  is  meant  to  make  them  think.  Universities 
should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore 
strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn 
assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.” 

The words of Harper, Hutchins, Levi, and Gray capture both the spirit and the promise 
of the University of Chicago. Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry 
in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible 
latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as  limitations  on  that 
freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University, the University of Chicago 
fully respects and  supports the freedom of all members of the  University community 
“to discuss any problem that presents itself.” 

Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and 
quite  naturally  conflict.  But  it  is  not  the  proper  role  of  the  University  to  attempt  to 
shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even 
deeply  offensive.  Although  the  University  greatly  values  civility,  and  although  all 
members  of  the  University  community  share  in  the  responsibility  for  maintaining  a 
climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as 
a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those 
ideas may be to some members of our community. 

The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, 
mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may 
restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual,  that 
constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably  invades substantial privacy 
or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning 
of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and 
manner  of  expression  to  ensure  that  it  does  not  disrupt  the  ordinary  activities of the 
University.  But  these  are  narrow  exceptions  to  the  general  principle  of  freedom  of 
expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used  in a manner 
that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free  and  open 
discussion of ideas. 

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or 
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or 
even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or 
wrong-headed. It is  for the individual members of the University community, not for 
the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act  on 
those  judgments  not  by  seeking  to  suppress  speech,  but  by  openly  and  vigorously 
contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the 
University  community  to  engage  in  such  debate  and  deliberation  in  an  effective and 
responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission. 

As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, 
members of the University community must also act in conformity with  the principle of 
free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize 
and  contest  the  views expressed  on  campus,  and  to  criticize  and  contest
speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or 
otherwise  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  others  to  express  views  they  reject  or  even 
loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a 
lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom 
when others attempt to restrict it. 

As  Robert  M.  Hutchins  observed,  without  a  vibrant  commitment  to  free  and  open 
inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s long-standing 
commitment to this principle lies at the very core of our University’s greatness. That is 
our inheritance, and it is our promise to the future."

(https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf)

[[Category:Rights]]
[[Category:Identity Politics]]
[[Category:Social Charters]]
[[Category:Education]]