| Dear Members of the University Community,
Today, I am thrilled to announce that an anonymous donor has committed $100 million in support of free inquiry and expression at the University of Chicago. Last year, the University launched the Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, and it will mark its first anniversary next week. With this extraordinary gift, the Chicago Forum will thrive and endure for years to come.
Successfully upholding free inquiry and expression in a university requires a long-term commitment to building a culture that supports it, that flourishes from it, that even demands it. This is fundamental to a university that is truth seeking. Each generation of UChicago’s community has contributed new layers to the institution in protection of free inquiry and expression, from founding president William Rainey Harper’s vocal defense of academic freedom to the adoption of the Kalven Report and on to the Chicago Principles.
The Chicago Forum is the newest layer–an environment set aside for us and others to grapple with important issues related to the preservation of academic freedom and the practice of free expression. The historic framing documents and the Chicago Principles summarize our institution’s best thinking on our philosophy and policies over time. But the actual practice of free expression takes place every day–in classrooms in every department and school, in dormitories and dining halls, and on the quads. This living culture and the norms we create by it involves engagement from each of us in our varied roles: tradeoffs and decisions and the cultivation of habits of mind and attitudes. In my view, the collective culture we build is so important that it deserves to have a place where it can be continuously discussed across the University and with partners from other universities and sectors of society.
The magnitude of this gift mirrors the conviction of its donor. It was not made in furtherance of any ideology or political agenda. Rather, it is in the belief that this university has a calling to be principled and effective. The donor’s generosity represents a strong endorsement of the potential for the Chicago Forum to serve as the next step in our living commitment to upholding free inquiry and expression. It is to be the venue for the whole of the University community to come together and undertake the study and practice of all aspects of free inquiry and expression, and to do so in partnership with others beyond the University.
Already in its first year, the Chicago Forum has made a strong case for itself during this highly contested period for higher education. On many occasions student groups sought the support of the Chicago Forum as they were reflecting on the practice of the Chicago Principles as issues they cared about deeply were unfolding. It also sponsored more than a dozen events on challenging topics ranging from the conflict in Israel and Gaza to significant Supreme Court rulings, as well as one with the University’s faculty about my decision to end the encampment last spring. Through the Academic Freedom Institute it formed, the Chicago Forum convened leaders from more than 20 colleges and universities to participate in workshops and explore how to strengthen academic freedom at their institutions. We live in an era marked by intense polarization, and having a place where rigorous inquiry and reason are exercised through the mechanisms of dialogue is important. With this gift, the University will expand the depth and reach of such vital work.
In the near term, the gift will enable the Chicago Forum to launch a variety of initiatives, including those that will allow it to expand its work on orientation programming, to offer support for faculty to explore free expression through a diversity of academic lenses, to establish a fellowship program for junior scholars, and to provide resources that will allow the University to bring prominent figures, including leading public intellectuals, to campus to engage in dialogue with the broader community. You can learn more about the gift and its impact at UChicago News.
I want to extend my deepest gratitude for the visionary support of the gift’s benefactor, which will ensure that the University remains at the forefront of defending and promoting the principles of free inquiry and expression. As we continue to navigate a world that increasingly demands thoughtful, courageous engagement with important issues, this gift will not only help empower our community to meet the moment with integrity and intellectual rigor, but also inspire others by our example.
Sincerely,
Paul
—
Paul Alivisatos
President |
Nice!
Fabulous news. I’m sure everyone is speculating about the identity of the donor. Are there any strong candidates?
What wonderful support for the University’s role in acting as a higher ed lighthouse for free speech and academic inquiry. It is a welcome antidote to the actions of the University of Penn toward Professor Wax as reported below.
https://freebeacon.com/campus/how-penn-tried-to-buy-amy-waxs-silence/
That article highlights the hypocrisy of going after Amy Wax while accepting far worse from others.
That’s pretty bad indeed.
Great news but I hope that it is used for better than the first formal activity after their kickoff program which was nothing more than a slightly warmed over woke/dei program. I lost interest, as I had no way to influence anything and dropped what was my initial enthusiastic subscription to their updates and announcements. Glad that Jerry is hanging in there. I just don’t trust that President Alivisatos gets it.
Again, thank you to the very generous alum!
Paul is a good guy but anyone who knows him knows he isn’t really suited for this kind of job. He isn’t eloquent like Zimmer which effects everything from fundraising to how those below you respond to your leadership and he hates confrontation…
Thanks Ted. Good information, but makes me yet more depressed and distressed. As I continue to wonder why boards of trustees do not hire better, more qualified people for these exciting positions, I am reminded of the admonition from a consultant to a public board I served on that was looking for a CEO/president/leader type: the consultant said to remember that when we are interviewing the candidate, he is also quietly interviewing the board; it is a two-way street for the best at that level. So maybe the best candidates have simply found the boards lacking and opted out of the job opportunity.
Awesome! Got the email from PA this morning. My daughter is a senior in HS and really likes Chicago and is thinking about applying early. I am trying not to push her too much even though I went there as an undergrad and loved it. My wife is concerned about the recent financial issues and the role that may play in quality (I think this isn’t a concern in the short run). This news made me very happy.
The news is not so good from PA, as Amy Wax has been punished, in absurdly unfair fashion, by U Penn for having certain opinions deemed unpalatable. It is undeniable that she has expressed views which many would consider to be extremely controversial, but she is, without question, brilliant and fearless, and the decision by the university is utterly disgraceful, the abrogation of her freedom of expression being completely indefensible.
This could be very good, but the real question is how this program will be implemented. Let’s see if they actually support free speech by people who support Israel!
Alivasatos should be given a little credit for this. Wasn’t the Academic Freedom Institute his initiative? And then this big gift comes in on his watch. He presents himself in a mild-mannered way, but he gets things done.
Sure, actions speak louder than words, and the Institute is just a talking shop, but there’s a famous saying at the U of C that goes, “I don’t care whether it works in practice; does it work in theory?” That’s a joke, of course, but it’s never wrong at this university to take theory – or call it principles – seriously and think and talk about them.
I watched some of last year’s sessions and did not find anything especially new or interesting in them. But the things said were worth saying. It’s a subject on which, like any other subject, it’s possible to be repetitive, even boring. But however true that may be for some of us with gray hairs, it will not be so for most young students. Explaining these fundamentals is a worthy part of the educational mission.
I’m really not sure how you “fund” free speech.
I was going to make the same point. The beauty of a “negative” right — The state (or the institution) shall take no action that abridges . . .” — is that it doesn’t cost anything. You even save money by disbanding the Courts of Star Chamber and the gangs with royal warrants who listen for subversive talk in taverns and smash printing presses. “Rights” to food, housing, medical care, a pension, and a “decent” income commensurate with your oppressed status are fantabulously expensive.
Obviously the donation can’t be used for political activity but you’d almost think that’s the only way money could defend freedom of speech against the wrong sort of politician trying to curtail it.
Agreed, but it doesn’t hurt!
THAT is the opposite of virtue signaling. Bravo!
By memory, I think that amount is in the same order of magnitude as what started the Templeton Fdn.
Love it, especially that it was anonymous. That says a lot about the state of free speech now.
Anybody else suspect the donor is Elon Musk?
Anybody else suspect the donor is Elon Musk?