In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Paul Alivisatos, the President of the University of Chicago, explained why he ordered the University cops to dismantle our encampment of pro-Palestinian protestors after eight days. There are good parts and not so good parts, but it’s clear that the basis for dismantling the enclave was to uphold our principle of institutional neutrality—the Kalven principle).
Click screenshot below to read the short piece or find it archived here.
A few quotes first:
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.
The principle that decided the final action:
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.
That sounds good, and is meant to uphold our free speech principles, but I’m not completely satisfied with this response for several reasons.
a.) I don’t think the President should have tried to bargain with the protestors. That never works, and winds up heartening them to erect encampments elsewhere to achieve their aims.
b.) We were never told that the administration was secretly trying to bargain with encampers. That distressed many of us, who, though we didn’t need to know what items were on the table, believe that you should never bargain with such a group of zealots. And believe me, the encampers were zealots.
c.) The President should simply have had the encampment removed the moment the first tent was hammered into the ground. Why? Because, as Alivisatos admitted in his first letter to the University, the encampment violated University “time, place, and manner” regulations in multiple ways. From the outset it was a big violation, not a minor one. And it only got bigger over time, exacerbating the problem.
d.) Bargaining with UCUP and SJP is a futile effort, because the University has had to deal with their disruptions repeatedly (this is the fifth time), they have never really punished the students, and the protesters are determined to continue their disruptions until they get everything they want. That includes the University divesting from Israel, something that will never happen here. Thus negotiations were doomed at the outset.
e.) Alivisatos implies that he let the encampment stand as a sign of our university’s tolerance of free speech, but, as I said, it was never a sign of free speech, but rather an illegal violation of principles that themselves were designed to promote free speech. Yes, let the protesters act legally, holding permitted demonstrations, giving speeches, and so on. But it’s not tolerating free speech to let people block access to parts of the university, harass their opponents, and disrupt University life by constant loud and illegal shouting and chanting on megaphones. One of my colleagues criticized the letter for implying that ending the protest too early would have been a violation of free speech, but allowing it to go on longer would have been caving in to pressure. That is, pulling the switch after a week was, to the President, the perfect solution. I disagree. Letting the encampment stay up from the outset is caving in to pressure, and other schools, like Dartmouth, have ended encampments very early without suffering any damage. On the other hand, Northwestern, which did strike a deal with protestors to give student scholarships and jobs to Palestinians, has suffered a loss in reputation for what is very possibly an illegal compromise.
The silver lining in this egregious encampment, and in the administration having allowed it to remain for a long time, is that the protesters, including University of Chicago United for Palestine (UCUP) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have shown themselves for who they are: a pack of hateful bullies unwilling to even discuss their aim, which is to push for the elimination of Israel and make the University of Chicago a refuge for Palestinian protest. Protest is fine, but the way the Jewish students have been treated here, by both the administration (which won’t answer their letters and only lightly punishes SJP for deplatforming them) and by the encampers (who tear down the Jewish banners every day and won’t permit “Zionists” in their encampment) has created a climate of anti-Semitism that justifies a Title VI lawsuit, as is happening at Northwestern. If the administration is to enforce institutional neutrality, it cannot allow it to go on so visibly for a week without any strong pushback. We must at all costs maintain our neutrality, and our time, place and manner regulations of speech, even in the face of hateful bullying.
Oh, and do you think any of the protesters will be punished? The University mentions internal sanctions, but that’s meant only for students and so far hasn’t even been applied to those who sat in in a building last October. Were students’ names taken? They won’t let us know. And as for the many non-students who joined the encampment—probably a majority of the protesters— they’ll face no punishment at all, as no arrests were made.
This lack of punishment means that our free-speech policies are toothless, for we have no meaningful deterrence for violating them.
A wealth of strategic information was gathered from all this.
I remember the post with the disciplinary action from a month or so ago – there was a specific clause that .. from my hazy memory … seems to account for the disciplinary action now. As if it was anticipated and exploited – but I’d need to find it…
Too much dithering. University presidents must accept that there is more to their job than fundraising.
At Rutgers, they’ve caved almost completely:
– accepting at least 10 “displaced Gazans”
– creating an Arab Cultural Center by the fall
– full amnesty for the campers
and more here
https://www.thecollegefix.com/rutgers-administration-buckles-to-anti-israel-activists-demands/
I am in agreement with all of jerry’s criticisms of the President’s actions – particularly Jerry’s paragraph (e). My own assessment is that the protesters should have been required to have permission for the demonstration to begin with, which would explicitly delimit time, place, and manner; then held to that, which means being removed upon first violation, ie first tent (stake), first blocking of sidewalks, first bullying/intimidation of other students, or first walling off of their protest area from other citizens who are legally on-campus or members of the UChicago community. It ain’t the protesters’ property!
If, while these protesters are demonstrating their opinions within the university policy guidelines, the university leadership wants to jawbone with them, I think that that would be great, but it is not a negotiation as the protesters really possess nothing with which to negotiate…they would simply be exercising their free speech, expression, and assembly rights. As a matter of fact, I think that it would have been good to have the president and or provost walking among the demonstrators to listen and talk very early on.
That all said, allowing myself one ad hominem, I still consider President Alivisatos to be a spineless empty suit, but now, after reading of his apparently high opinion of himself regarding the handling of this matter, consider him to be a world-class bullshitter too.
“… As a matter of fact, I think that it would have been good to have the president and or provost walking among the demonstrators to listen and talk very early on.”
Bold idea – I would strongly recommend getting in shape with some critical training at a dialectics gym beforehand.
Few can make it through the manipulation of the wizards’ circle.
Yes. It would be an enlightening (whoops can’t use that word) romp.
Dialectic of Enlightenment (Dialektik der Aufklärung)
Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno
1947
(1972 Herder and Herder New York)
… pairs perfectly with the Scientific Dialectician post from today too!.. I actually have to get it now…
Yeah. I’m guessing that Alivisatos consolidating events a bit—and is reprising the thought process he went through as the crisis evolved. Once the perpetrators had been allowed to continue their encampment for more than a few days—when they could have been removed with little fanfare—the encampment had become so large that removal would require a major police presence and would risk violence. So, the administration tried to talk the protestors down (tried to “negotiate”) and failed. Of course, by this time, a negotiated solution was unlikely, as the large size of the protest had emboldened the leaders. So ultimately, the police had to be called in.
Fortunately, the encampment ended peacefully. But this should be a sharp lesson to college administrators. They need to act quickly to shut protests down that violate time, place, and manner rules. They can’t wait for them to become large, for once large the risks add up and it becomes difficult to unwind without making compromises that reward the perpetrators and encourage further unrest.
+1
Today’s “Daily Nous” blog features an article by the editor, Justin Weinberg, substantially quoting from, and favorably discussing, a “Chronicles of Higher Ed” note by Anton Ford, of the UChicago Philosophy faculty, criticising the removal of the encampment and the President’s statement.
Link for the Daily Nous article: https://dailynous.com/2024/05/08/should-universities-protect-protest-speech/
Probable link to the Chronicles article (I can’t read beyond a firewalled first bit):
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-chicago-principles-are-undemocratic
Brian Leiter (UChicago law and philosophy) at his own Leiter Reports has a short response against the Ford article. I omit the link as I have the superstition that WordPress is triggered to reject a comment with three or more links. But it is not hard to find.
And it should not mind if I put the 3rd link in a separate reply comment. Leiter’s response is at https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2024/05/a-brief-comment-on-philosopher-anton-fords-commentary-on-the-chicago-principles-in-che.html
It is understandable if people are disruptive in situations where dissent is suppressed – since their voices will never be heard if they don’t engage in some degree of disruption. But in a context where dissent is INVITED – such as UC – disruption is not only an effort to be heard, it is itself an effort to suppress dissent.
As such, there was never any good reason to allow the students to engage in disruptive protests in the first place.
For all the reasons Jerry stated, UC should have shut down the encampment instantly. The students literally could have protested on the quad every single day to get their message out, while not breaking the reasonable TPM requirements. That wasn’t enough for them because it was a fundamentally anti-democratic movement seeking to force the university to do things rather than attempt to persuade others to their cause. By allowing this particular group to set up an encampment, the university has set the standard that others can also try to force their opinions rather than engaging in discussion. The University didn’t have the guts to stand up for its core principles immediately and then had to backpedal all week and in the president’s statement.
“By allowing this particular group to set up an encampment, the university has set the standard that others can also try to force their opinions rather than engaging in discussion.”
That may be. On the other hand, the university may have as (if not more) likely decided that once is enough and any future group contemplating a similar action might ought to prudently consider that.
I’ve been listening to the “Judging Freedom” podcast by Judge Andrew Napolitano. He seems to think that university student protesters across the fruited plain are having their First Amendment rights violated. I have yet to hear him utter the first word about Place, Manner and Time, and commandeering space for and building encampments. He surely would consider a courtroom off-limits if not also the courthouse lawn.