This is a story about how the University of Chicago, famed as the #1 Free Speech School of America, is now allowing the suppression of speech, either not punishing those who engage in suppression or giving them ridiculously light punishments. The result is that there is no palpable deterrent to students who want to silence others or to violate University policy by disrupting activities. Because there are no serious sanctions for disrupting speech or academic activities, one organization has sworn to continue its illegal actions.
But read on. This narrative involves the now-familiar clash between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students. And it culminates in an unsatisfying University hearing in which free-speech suppressors from Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) were not even slapped on the wrist for deplatforming Jewish students, but given a barely perceptible wrist tap—even after SJP’s previous and multiple violations of campus regulations.
Disruption #1: Late last year, right after Hamas’s attack on southern Israel, a group of Jewish students held a demonstration in the Quad, on the center of campus. As I wrote :
On October 19, a group of Jewish students, sponsored in part by Chabad, gathered at the University of Chicago’s central “quad” to peacefully protest the Hamas attack on Israel, to show their solidarity, and to listen to a series of talks by Jewish leaders on campus. [There’s a photo] of the group shown at the Chicago Thinker , a conservative student newspaper (there’s also an article about what happened).
In short, the students were shouted down by members of SJP using megaphones, even after SJP had promised to not disrupt the Jewish demonstration. Several deans-on-call who were present did absolutely nothing to stop this violation of campus rules.
On October 25, two Jewish students who organized that demonstration, Talia Elkin and Eliza Ross, contacted the University administration about how their speakers had been “deplatformed” by SJP. Talia and Eliza turned their letter into a petition, got 400 signatures, and sent it to virtually every bigwig in the University administration, including the President and Provost. They kindly allowed me to reproduce their letter here (ultimately haters of Israel starting putting in fake names and the petition was taken down, though you can find it at the preceding link).
Did the administrators to whom they sent the letter ever respond directly to the students? Nope—with the exception of one dean who told the students they could file a complaint if they wanted. In fact, four Jewish students did file a formal complaint, and I’ll describe below what became of it. But let’s continue with the timeline.
On October 27, a group 28 faculty, including me, signed a separate letter to the administration about the rule-violating disruptions, asking for “visible repercussions for those who disrupted speakers.”
Eventually, after after these two letters were sent to the administration, President Alivisatos issued a public affirmation of free speech on December 21, emphasizing that disrupting the speech of others was prohibited. This statement may have been the administration’s response to the two letters. Here’s an excerpt from President Alivisatos’s policy statement. I’ve put the relevant part in bold:
Protests and demonstrations are an essential part of our culture of free expression, and within the University are protected as essential venues for truth seeking. History is full of examples where protests have helped to shape new understanding in society, disrupting prior convention. Provided you are complying with the University policies on protest and demonstration, you may join in congress with others in protest and express your views.
In any venue, no member of our community may shout down or seek to prevent the protected expression of those with whom they disagree. You may not tear down a poster. You may not seek to intimidate or threaten another person, or prevent them from hearing an invited speaker. These are egregious offenses against our community. We have policies and processes for guiding community norms, reporting instances that require investigation, and disciplinary action when needed.
Of course President Alivisatos was only reiterating a policy already in place. Note the threat of disciplinary action, which, as you’ll see, turned out to be toothless.
Disruption #2: On November 3, both SJP and another pro-Palestinian coalition, UChicago United for Palestine (UCUP) held another illegal demonstration, blocking Levi Hall, the main administration building on campus. They blocked access to the building, shouted with megaphones (chanting the usual “river to the sea” slogans and other chants. The noise itself, disrupting classes in the Quad, also violated University principles, since amplified sound is permitted outside only between 1 and 5 p.m., and this demonstration occurred at about 9:30 a.m.
Below is a short video I took of the SJP and UCUP students blocking access to the building.
Did the students engaged in this violation get any university warnings or punishments? Not that I know of.
Disruption #3. Six days later, SJP and UCUP organized and engaged in a sit-in in Rosenwald Hall, the University’s admissions office. Sit-ins like this are clearly illegal, and the disruption was reported both in the Chicago Maroon (the student newspaper) and in The Nation (written by one of the protestors). At first, there seemed to be serious punishment for those who sat in: as the Maroon reported, “28 people were arrested: 18 undergraduates, eight graduate students, and two professors.” The charge was “criminal trespass of real land,” charges that could land the protestors six months in prison and fines up to $1500.
However, when the accused appeared in court on December 20, the DA declined to pursue charges, so the cases were dismissed. My attempt to find out from the University whether they had an advisory role in dropping the charges, or whether there would be separate University punishment for this illegal disruption, failed.
However, it turned out that the participating students (and perhaps the 2 faculty) were “punished”, but their punishment was laughable. Those arrested were required, under the University’s “disruptive conduct” disciplinary process, to submit statements to the Associate Dean of Students. These statements turned out to be of the “why I demonstrated” ilk, and a sample was published in The Chicago Maroon (my post about this is here). Was there any contrition shown by the protestors? No. Did students vow to continue demonstrating? Of course. Did they continue to accuse the University of complicity in genocide? Of course! What the University got was simply a bunch of statements of defiance. Here’s just one example, but, if you want a laugh, go over and read the sample of “punishment essays”. Here’s one:
“… As the international movement for a free Palestine strengthens, the day is rapidly approaching when people will no longer be able to justify silencing protest of the genocidal, apartheid regime of Israel and its project of ethnic cleansing. When people will be ashamed for having participated, actively or tacitly, in this genocide. When that day comes, the world will not forget the complacency of the University of Chicago, who bankrolled the genocide and stood on the side of the oppressors despite their insistence on “political neutrality.” Furthermore, the University, a famed defender of free speech, will forever be forced to account for the contradiction of arresting 26 of its students, silencing a peaceful protest that was simply asking for a meeting with the administration.
My trust in this university’s priorities has undoubtedly corroded in this process—in how it has treated my protest of the nation’s and university’s complicity in the genocide of Palestinians with silence, arrest, and discipline. And my hope that the University will uphold its ostensible values of free speech and fearless inquiry has similarly withered. But, if there’s even an iota of integrity, of genuine regard for free speech, of concern for the well-being of students, and of concern for the legacy of the school that isn’t clouded by the allure of short-term profit, the University of Chicago should drop its baseless disciplinary case, listen to its students, and end its support of Israeli apartheid and genocide…”
—UCUP member, Undergraduate Student, Class of 2025
Now that’s contrition, no? Most of the statements resemble that one. This punishment wasn’t even as severe as that meted out to elementary-school students forced to write “I will not throw spitballs in class” a hundred times. Instead, it gave the respondents quoted in the newspaper a chance to spew further defiance as well as to accuse the University of various crimes. Who thought up this “punishment”? If it was designed to deter disruptions like sit-ins, it was a miserable failure.
On January 23, I published an op-ed in the Chicago Maroon, “Should Students for Justice in Palestine be a recognized student organization?” I argued that we should consider re-evaluating SJP’s status as a recognized student organization (RSO)—not because of the group’s abhorrent speech (see my piece for examples), which is after all permitted free speech at the U of C—but because of SJP’s “continual disruption of our campus and violation of University regulations.” I finished by urging the University to deter these disruptions by imposing meaningful sanctions on violators. As I wrote:
Finally, to deter organizations from such violations, it’s imperative that our administration not only warn and then punish violators, but also let us know that punishments have been levied. If University regulations of conduct aren’t enforced, they become toothless. And that simply encourages further disruption.
As you’ll see in a minute, the University seems to have no stomach for to imposing serious sanctions that really deter deplatforming of speech or disruption of campus activities. If you think this will deter further illegal actions by SJP, I have some land in Florida to sell you.
In contrast, after a recent illegal sit-in at Vanderbilt University, also by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, President Daniel Diermeier (formerly our own Provost) had four students arrested and sixteen suspended. Suspensions, of course, are not on the table at Chicago.
I’ll add that my letter seems to be the only letter ever in the Maroon to criticize the aggressive and illegal behavior of organizations like SJP or UCUP. That’s in contrast to the paper’s repeated publication of very long posts and op-eds by SJP members. For example, after a 4,000-word Maroon piece by Kelly Hui, who covered SJP’s activities as a sympathetic protestor (she also wrote the piece in The Nation), the paper added this:
As The Maroon’s long-form and narrative features section, Grey City seeks to produce coverage that gives students a direct voice in reporting. As a separate report, Grey City will soon be publishing a story written by pro-Israel student organizer who has been active in recent campus demonstrations.
That was on November 29 of last year. Has the promised story written by a “pro-Israel student organizer” appeared? Nope. The campus newspaper makes no attempt to seek out points of view other than those of SJP or UCUP. In fact, I consider the Maroon to be an arm of SJP.
Disruption #4. But wait! There’s more! SJP and UCUP engaged in yet another illegal activity on January 26: a “die-in” in the campus eatery Pret a Manger. Several dozen students lay down on the floor with roses on their chest (a guaranteed way to end war), hindering students trying to order food and eat. (A lot of students simply left the eatery.) The die-in was a violation of campus regulations, and there were campus cops as well as a University Public Affairs official on the scene. Were the students removed? Nope. Were they punished? Not that I could find out; their names weren’t taken and my calls and emails to Public Affairs were not returned.
And so we’ve had at least four illegal acts by SJP and UCUP: the confrontation with the Jewish students, the blocking of the administration building, the sit-in in the admissions office, and the die-in in Pret A Manger. There were other violations too, particularly those involving amplified noise on campus outside specified hours (I’m told that the megaphonic chanting of SJP could be heard inside every classroom on the Quad.) But the University ignored these violations, saying that they couldn’t be documented (see below).
Until about two weeks ago, the four illegal acts met with only a single instance of punishment by the University: the requirement for writing the “my demonstration experience” letters, which simply produced more defiance. There’s no evidence that there’s been any deterrence.
But the Jewish students, still upset by the continuing illegal activity by SJP as well as the lack of meaningful sanctions, decided to go the formal complaint route. Four Jewish students, Talia Elkin, Eliza Ross, Ben Lipkin, and Josh Blustein (names used with permission) filed a complaint against SJP to the University. The complaint was adjudicated by an official disciplinary committee for disruptive conduct, including faculty and students. The students’ complaint and SJPs response are confidential and I’ve not seen them. But the University’s official judgment is not confidential, and was given to me by the “plaintiff” students. I’ve put it below the fold but summarize the “official punishment” (if you can call it that) below. First, though I want to put up a take on the hearing and on the University’s light-handed treatment of SJP written by one of the plaintiffs. (This is not the official complaint, but written for this site.)
In the following narrative by fourth-year undergraduate Eliza Ross, “RSO” stands for recognized student organization one of the 400-odd interest groups here officially affiliated with the University. RSOs have sponsors and get funds from the University. SJP, an RSO, is also affiliated with a national organization having over 200 branches on American and Canadian campuses. SJP was temporarily suspended at two universities, Columbia and George Washington, not for violating freedom of speech, but for illegal demonstrations that did not comply with university policies—similar to the ones at the University of Chicago.
On to Eliza’s summary and conclusions:
*************************************
Eliza Ross
After our rally on October 19th, 2023, we waited patiently for four months to come to a final resolution of the events of that day. The disciplinary process culminated in a formal hearing wherein we sought to obtain closure following the harm that SJP caused us and dozens of affected students and community members at the event and in the weeks following.
This disciplinary hearing was not about the October 7th massacre or the current war between Israel and Hamas. It wasn’t about who has greater claim to the land, which group started the conflict, or whether people in our country should have any say in the outcome. This hearing was also not about why either group was present on the quad on October 19th. It wasn’t about why we chose to rally or why SJP decided to shout us down, or whether anyone involved in the disciplinary process agreed with or believed the substance of either group’s message.
The events of October 19th are indisputable. We planned our rally meticulously, ensuring that every campus rule and regulation was followed in the process. And yet, despite all of this, the rally was disrupted, the program devolved, and most importantly, multiple speakers were shouted down. Their voices were silenced — preventing them from speaking and preventing those who cared to listen from hearing what they had to say. These are incontrovertible, documented facts supported with photo and video evidence.
This hearing was about how the University responds to a student group repeatedly violating policy and failing to take responsibility for their actions. Moreover, it was about the message the University sends to an organization which has made it clear that they have no intention of changing their behavior, despite complaints lodged against them and multiple warnings. This hearing was about enforcing the rules set by the administration to protect the experience and activities of all students. It was about enforcing the world-renowned policy of the Chicago Principles – whereby every member of our community has the right to speak and be heard, irrespective of the content of the message.
This hearing was also about preserving the legitimacy and respectability of this institution’s policies, the right to free speech being one of UChicago’s defining characteristics. If any group repeatedly violates the code of conduct without facing ramifications, the precedent is then set that these policies, which were designed and implemented for good reason, are irrelevant. Similarly, if the rules are selectively enforced based on the content of a group’s speech, then the vicious cycle of violation will only continue. It is our belief that the administration’s failure to stand its ground on this matter with SJP has ensured that University community members know confidently that the promise of free speech and open discourse on this campus is hollow.
SJP demonstrated a clear disregard for the Chicago Principles and numerous aspects of university policy. A prime example was when members of SJP were arrested for refusing to vacate Rosenwald hall in November. If past, or in this case, ongoing behavior is any indication of future behavior, it stands to reason that SJP will continue to defy other policies to which we are all subject and that the free speech of anyone with whom SJP disagrees is at risk of being violated again.
SJP has shown blatant disregard for University rules and administrative authority. Perhaps most brazenly, in anticipation of the official disciplinary hearing on February 16th, SJP publicly denounced the University’s disciplinary process, describing it as “illegitimate,” and referring to the hearing as a “sham.” SJP also advocated for the violation of University policy again by calling for people to bring pots, pans, instruments and whistles to the main quad to make excessive noise that same day. In addition to the misconduct at the rally and in the days following, SJP has demonstrated their utter contempt for the rules, the administration and the disciplinary process on countless other occasions which were outside of the scope of our complaint, but must be noted as the group has exhibited a consistent pattern of disregard and disrespect.
It is our belief that SJP needed to face significant disciplinary measures. Such measures needed to address both the infractions that have been committed and SJP’s refusal to take responsibility for them; a punishment which provided relief to the people they have harmed, and was significant enough to deter similar ongoing and future behavior. We felt that the appropriate measures would have entailed a temporary suspension of SJP as a registered student organization, but at a minimum, SJP should have faced the loss of significant RSO privileges and/or access to University funding.
We hoped that in determining the appropriate outcome, the disciplinary committee would keep in mind that without adequately restrictive punishment, SJP’s mindset would lead to further violations of university policy, as was demonstrated time and again over the four months prior to the hearing. We sincerely hoped that the University did not believe that these infractions were acceptable and would take decisive action to end the cycle of violation and disruption.
As the faculty letter in support of our case, authored and signed by more than two dozen professors reads: “We hope there are going to be visible repercussions for those who disrupted speakers and for the administrators who neglected their obligations. Clear consequences are necessary to send a message that the Chicago Principles carry real meaning.” The University of Chicago has promised not just to allow all viewpoints, but to ensure a forum in which they can be heard. Without the administration of adequate consequences, this promise becomes meaningless. We hoped for the sake of every member of this esteemed institution that the University would not allow that to happen. Unfortunately, they did.
**********************************
I’ve put the entire Formal Resolution of the Disciplinary Committee below the fold, omitting names. And 0nce again, the punishment levied by the University is light and, to me, risible. They merely reported SJP as violating regulations and have put an “official warning” on file. Here’s their decision—an “Official Warning” (bolding is mine).
The Committee considered the conduct of the Respondent and the impact of that conduct on the Complainant when determining a sanction. The Committee also considered the totality of the behavior from both organizations during the event. Even though the Complainant highlighted behavior they ascribed to the Respondent in other instances, the Committee only considered this matter when determining the following sanction: Official Warning – An official warning indicates the organization has violated University policies or regulations and will be placed on file. If the organization engages in any additional misconduct, the appropriate disciplinary body will be informed of this official warning, the related circumstances, and must consider the warning in determining further sanctions.
Why is the University so loath to mete out serious disciplinary action to SJP, UCUP, and students who violate the University’s code of conduct regarding protests? I don’t for a minute think this reflects anti-Semitism. Rather, I think it reflects fear: fear that the University of Chicago will not only lose its patina as the nation’s premier “free speech” school, and will wind up looking bad, as did Harvard, MIT, and Penn during those infamous Congressional hearings. The University well knows that if SJP is disciplined, it will make even more noise, but they also know that the Jewish students, like the four above, abide by the rules and don’t make a big noise that could attract national attention. Nevertheless, the Jewish students, as I know from meeting them, are intimidated and somewhat fearful. If the University’s inaction became public, it might make Jewish parents loath to send their kids here. I believe that the failure to sanction SJP stems from the University’s desire to at all costs avoid bad national publicity.
Since nobody else has followed this story, or criticized the University for going easy on a hateful organization that has vowed to “disrupt business at usual”, I am doing it here. And to the administrators of the University of Chicago i say this: if you don’t get serious about enforcing the rules, which include punishing people who disrupt free speech, our school will lose its reputation for free expression, academic freedom, and an absence of ideological disruption. But the disruption has already become endemic.
***
I end with an an Instagram post by SJP and UCUP put up on December 20 (something I wrote about before). Even after being arrested and having the charges dropped, the groups vowed to continue breaking the rules. A quote from the post (my bolding):
‼️ ‼️ at the end of the hearing, the judge said he was giving us a “civics lesson.” he said our first amendment rights allow us to protest, but when authorities tell us to leave, that’s what we should do. he said we can only protest with police permission, otherwise our protest is not “peaceful.” WE REJECT THIS. we know that it is imperative to disrupt business as usual. the people in power have not been listening, and deploy the police to enforce their will. they choose to make continual investments in genocide. so we’re not done!! we will continue to put pressure on uchicago admin to meet our demands, which are the same as they have always been. uchicago can arrest us, take down our art, and intimidate us, but we will continue our solidarity with palestine. until liberation 🇵🇸🇵🇸
To see the official report of the disciplinary committee, provided to me by the plaintiffs (who had permission to distribute it), click “continue reading”:
Here, with names left out, are screenshots of the official resolution of the Disciplinary Committee provided to the plaintiffs and (I guess) to the SJP. I have put a red box around the punishment levied to the SJP at the bottom.
Free speech for everyone but Jews I guess. It’s easier to silence a minority of students.
It doesn’t look good for President Alivisatos if U of C looses it’s top position in the free speech arena.
The punishment was a real opportunity to advertise for their cause.
This is just awful. Not shocking, after the ridiculous “discipline” given to the students who occupied Rosenwald, but still awful.
Jerry pointed out that after the university let off SJP and UCUP with a warning for drowning out the scheduled Jewish gathering, SJP and UCUP vowed to keep breaking university rules. And the university’s notice claims that the official warning puts the groups “on file” so that “If the organization engages in any additional misconduct, the appropriate disciplinary body will be informed of this official warning, the related circumstances, and must consider the warning in determining further sanctions.”
That *should* mean that in future, more violations will get the groups *more* than a warning. The university has foolishly guaranteed further disruptions, and that it will look even more ridiculous when they continue to avoid meting out real discipline. Because I think Jerry’s right: They are cravenly just attempting to avoid bad publicity as long as they can, instead of following a principled course of action. I don’t think they’ll ever properly defend the Chicago Principles.
As an alum, I am disgusted.
“We know it is imperative to disrupt business as usual.” ~ SJP
That is the Woke Marxist playbook. The section on “shoutdown” is simply lifted from the slogan “repressive tolerance” by Herbert Marcuse.
+1
Also – read the instructions for protests :
Beautiful Trouble – free online (contemporary)
Rules for Radicals – Saul Alinsky (70s)
“An SDS radical once wrote, ‘The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution! In other words the cause-whether inner city blacks or women-is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.”
-David Horowitz
Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model (2009)
And James Lindsay is supposedly preparing a “journal club” (as I see it) on George Soros’ concepts, including reflexive environment.
It’s all a show … or, IMHO : a gnostic cult ritual intended to Hermetically transform the world.
Given your mention of Alinsky and the book quote from Horowitz, you might find this old article from 2016 an interesting read. It points out, with lots of links to sources, many of the things that came to mind when I read your comment and does so much better than I could. In short, one should be cautious about giving credence to the “myths” about Alinsky and his influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that where generated by the likes of Republican Party politicians and pundits like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
For example, Alinsky was never a Marxist, in fact was strongly against it. Interestingly, Horowitz was a Marxist, though of course that changed drastically at some point.
Who is Saul Alinsky, and why does the right hate him so much?
Dialectical political warfare – identity politics – only advances the revolution.
Faith in dialectic is the core belief of the Hegelian cult.
“And so the dialectic continues.”
-Delgado and Stefancic
Critical Race Theory – An Introduction, p.66, 3rd Ed., 2017
I know that means a lot to you as you repeat it quite frequently, but I’m not sure what you mean to say by repeating it in response to my comment here.
“… I’m not sure what you mean to say by repeating it …”
It is the dialectic which is repeating – I am utterly irrelevant. Look at it go – it’s right there – Mao’s friend vs. enemy – manipulation of thought (Lifton, 1961) and then click – the Left (Hegel) ratchets a tiny bit forward after the damage is done.
I guarantee that the idealists of SJP and UCUP will next demand that they receive academic credit for their activities. I make this prediction based on my own long activity as a student activist, which began long ago in elementary school.
In the 4th grade, I organized a few of my classmates into a protest group, and I still remember its name, after many decades: “The Committee for the Rights and Justice of the Students.” I was a precocious little boy. If I had been even more precocious, I would no doubt have named our group “The People’s Interplanetary Mobilization for Peace and Justice” and added the WTO, globalism, the genetically modified soybean, and Israel’s many offenses to our list of grievances.
We issued a proclamation and distributed a leaflet to our fellow students, using crayons for lack of access to a mimeograph machine. Our proclamation started from the rank injustice of hall-passes, and went on to denounce the historic exploitation of nine-year-olds by the international capitalist system of scheming, soulless grownups.
First, we put up posters in the hall. Then, We considered blocking the street outside the school, in order to “raise consciousness,” but had to drop the idea because we couldn’t safely cross the street without a crossing guard. Instead, we announced our intention to occupy the school nurse’s office.
Several of my contemporaries were nervous about taking a strong stand. If we occupied the school nurse’s office, they worried, wouldn’t that prevent the nurse from bandaging scraped knees and doing things like that? “We who wanted to prepare the ground for kindness,” I told them, “could not be kind ourselves.” But, they went on, if we were all given detention after school, then we would miss out on getting ice cream on the way home from school. I explained that you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Bravo. At that age, I was writing to WGN to complain bitterly about their persistent practice of pre-empting the nightly 6:00 rerun of The Dick Van Dyke Show for Cub games.
Ah, but did your compatriots gather together to bang pots and pans, blow horns and whistles, and hold their breaths and stamp their feet to drown out the teachers and display how very, very serious they were?
It was 4th grade. I’m guessing they would have thought that too babyish.
We of course arranged a meeting between our group’s Politburo and a school Assistant Principal. The whole story is at: https://www.krabarchive.com/ralphmag/DT/fourth-grade.html . Not much has changed in the 70 years between this episode and today’s U. Chicago.
Thank you for putting this together, Jerry. I have been worried for some time now that your current President is just an empty suit who is squandering active policies of the Kalven Report and Chicago Principles through go along to get along non-enforcement. Meanwhile, your former provost is at Vanderbilt kicking tuchus. Looks like the board promoted the wrong person…or maybe, as with the Harvard Corp and Claudine Gay, this guy is what they want. I ask myself: what would Bob Zimmer have done? It is a shame to lose the guiding light of justice as fairness.
The entire episode is disgraceful and alarming. Congratulations to Jerry for documenting the issue and bringing it to our attention; and also for his courage in being prepared to stand up for his principles and tell the truth, knowing that in doing so he must be running the risk of putting himself in the firing line.
Administrators and many faculty may be supporting disruptions because they remember the student disruptions from the Vietnam protest era which were widely tolerated. However, things are different now. We know better. Free speech was not at issue then as it is now.
You don’t think free speech was an issue then? The demonstrators themselves said it was, fighting as they were against repression by the authorities. Or they were trying to provoke a repressive response, to “prove” how fascist Amerika was and justify its overthrow. I was never sure which, exactly.
Then, as now, freedom of speech was highly viewpoint-selective. Politicians and academics speaking in favour of America’s war aims were routinely disinvited and shouted down, just like today. Ideological conformity was enforced. No platform for warmongers.
I think you may be confounding support for the ideological aims of the Vietnam War protestors, and their eventual vindication provided by military defeat, with freedom of speech itself. It was weaponized then and is being weaponized today.
You make good points. I was mainly referring to the fact that then such protest was new and was not viewed as a threat to free speech as much as an emotional reaction to a bloody war. Today, wokeness, neo-fascism, etc, have awakened us to the risk.
And it was OUR bloody war.
There is a wealth of strategic insight from the test of the system here that will be useful for the next demonstration.
Maybe a highlight would be the exact language about how there is always disruption from day-to-day activities that interfere to some extent. (See the above where megaphones are mentioned I’m in haste).
The next technique can be expected to follow the “I’m not touching you I’m not touching you!” pattern of inter-sibling warfare. This can be observed when police stop protestors who, e.g. sprinkle glitter on their targets. The phrase “But I’m not touching anybody” conceals the intended violent nature of the protest. (That was on eXtwitter recently).
We can imagine what form it might take. Maybe certain low-amplitude megaphones (..phones..?), getting a busking permit and using really loud musical instruments AND megaphones…? Time will tell.
I have observed over and over and have read over and over—going back to the time of the Holocaust and before—that Jews tend to follow the rules and believe in the efficacy of rules-based institutional structures. They demonstrated exactly this principle at the University of Chicago. There, pro-Israel demonstrators got all the necessary permits to conduct their rallies. And, there, when let down by those rules and structures, Jews used those very same (failed) structures to voice their disappointment. It should come as no surprise, then, that Jews often end up speaking with their wallets
The overall message is that following the rules gets you nowhere but breaking them advances your cause. The reason is simple. Playing by the rules demands no action. Breaking them does (or should), but since enforcing rules always entails some distastefulness, the rule-breakers always get something. Consequently, the rule-breakers creep forward while the rule-followers get shafted.
The belief in rules-based institutions is deeply ingrained in Jewish culture, and I don’t expect that commitment to change. It’s time that the stewards of those institutions grow backbones and meet the obligations they have committed themselves to uphold. Anything less is hypocrisy.
There is also a tradition in Jewish cultural history to operate outside the rules. The Irgun is not unique in Jewish history.
Sorry, but what point are you making? Mine was that at the University of Chicago, the Jewish students operate WITHIN the rules.
My point was not directed at anything you had said. Norman Gilinsky had made a point about Jewish culture, which my comment was directed towards.
Oh, sorry. My bad.
True indeed. So was the Bar Kokhba revolt another example of going outside the rules (which didn’t go so well). But I still hold that Jews tend to follow the rules, and they certainly did in the (continuing) case of the U of C, much to their frustration. The University still has an opportunity to redeem itself. Let’s see if it does.
Please note I am not lumping all demonstrations in one category with this comment, but making a discernment :
Interesting point about rules – because the radicals and their Outer School are following rules! (See comment above – and I post this regularly ) – the book titles even tell us :
Rules for Radicals
Beautiful Trouble : A Toolbox for Revolution
… part of it is an environment of mystique – the appearance of organic materialization from nothing.
But it’s just the (narcissistic) radicals are so special doing their own god’s work they need their own revolutionary rules…. and pardon me if I muse a bit how the pattern radical v. orthodoxy is similar to the gnostic heresies which went against orthodoxy in the Christian church… so far as I know…
+1 Norman. Well-said as always.
Indeed. If you stop enforcing the rules or do so selectively you’re basically allowing for corruption and as corruption grows, so dies fairness and ultimately freedom.
Will SJP and UCUP idealists follow the lead of environment activists in British museums? If so, they might pour soup on University documents in the admin building; or, alternatively, super-glue themselves to the food counter in the cafeteria. But since they acknowledge the leadership role of Hamas in “decolonializing” activities, maybe they will kidnap a few Associate Deans and drag them to tunnels under their dorm, while demanding, of course, that there be no prosecution or academic penalty for their exercises.
I’m curious about the membership of groups like the SJP and UCUP. Does anyone have a feel for how many of these students are not US citizens? Are we importing our troubles as we rake in those who pay sticker price for tuition and “diversify” our campuses, or are these home-grown rebels attacking foundational principles of American speech?
Probably some of both, and others. Given the kind of free and open society that the US has always aspired to be, generally speaking, makes vulnerabilities like importing troublesome students to our colleges pretty much inevitable.
It would be nice if these universities would start enforcing their own rules.
I agree that there will always be vulnerabilities if we are to maintain a free and open society. I also agree that the rules should be enforced—to include any relevant to visitors to this country and their obligation to adhere to law. I am more concerned with whether this behavior is reflective of either an ignorance or a rejection of free speech values by students who were born and educated in the United States. The potential long-term solutions differ depending on the makeup of the groups.
Nothing says a country has to grant foreign student visas to anyone who wants one. They foreign students are good for the colleges because of the swingeing tuition they pay but it’s not clear that any other domestic stakeholders benefit.
With the caveat of perhaps not quite anyone who wants one, I think it is pretty clear that a society does benefit. But I do think it would be best to enforce the rules, including expulsion and revoking their visa for transgressions that warrant it per the rules.
Good for you, Prof. Coyne, for such a meticulous and compelling presentation of the problem and evidence. I hope this will help to persuade the university administration to get its act together and enforce its policies.
Thank you Professor Coyne for sharing this .
I notice that the students almost without exception are wearing masks almost to the point of completely covering the face. It is a wonder they bother since being identified doesn’t seem to carry the risk of any repercussions whatsoever apart from a lengthy “word salad” from the cowardly administration watching the bottom line?
These “ students” abuse and seek to destroy the very freedoms that permit their activities. Export them all to Russia, they would do well there, sarcasm.
I think the masks are part of the intimidation factor.
That’s coupled with a strong sense of persecution and overwhelming tendency to catastrophize. Even when the “punishment” is minimal or even absent they tell themselves and each other that the Fascists are on the brink of destroying their lives.
I hope this post and its full accounting of what appears to be an allowed institutionalization of a heckler’s veto (and worse-intimidation) is forwarded to FIRE to carry appropriate weight versus the 200-300 responses they get in their survey which I believe should be ongoing for this year until June.
Can anyone tell me how the Palestinian supporters know that U Chicago is invested in Israel? I thought that information was not made public.
It isn’t public and none of us know. They are making an assumption without evidence.
Morons.
I just wanted to say thank you, Jerry. Your commitment to free expression and willingness to put your head above the parapet are both very welcome. You are doing an important job here, and many people appreciate your efforts.
+1
+1
Thank you for taking the time to explain what happened. U Chicago failed on this one.
And continues to fail. It was not just a one off…though administration likely hopes it is.