Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Glimmer of Hope for Academia
Thirty years ago, an obscure University of Chicago philologist predicted the closing of the American mind. Looking around today, Allan Bloom’s prediction has come true in spades: the country seems to be slipping into the abyss of a new dark age. The leading edge of this slippage is the college campus.
Here on Ricochet we hear a lot about Hillsdale College and tend to write off the big mainstream research universities — which are completely dependent on federal grants—as hopeless Petri dishes of ignorance, unreason, intolerance, intellectual cowardice, and rage.
Well, maybe so. However, this week The College of The University of Chicago (always capitalize the “The”) sent out a remarkable welcome letter to its entering Class of 2020. The letter contains the following words:
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
In the totalitarian, anti-intellectual climate of today’s academia, this is both courageous and incendiary. It’s also classic Chicago.
The letter is the product of a 2014 review by the University of its freedom of expression policy, initiated by president Robert Zimmer. The committee that drafted the policy, chaired by first amendment scholar and old school liberal Geoffrey Stone, produced a report that is at once commonsensical and radically refreshing. It states:
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.
I am a Chicago double-alum, so I am pleased, but not totally surprised, by all this. This is not the first time Chicago has bucked academic trends. In the 1960s, when the Ivies were buckling under to student radicals, gutting their curricula, abolishing grades and creating bogus new fields like “Gender Studies,” Chicago stood firm on its classical Common Core, rooted in the Great Books tradition. When in January 1969 students took over the administration building, president Edward Levi refused to capitulate. He waited two weeks until the radicals gave up, then expelled 42 of them and suspended 81 more. Levi commented, “There are values to be maintained. We are not bought and sold and transformed by that kind of pressure.” He went on to be a consequential post-Watergate U.S. attorney general.
Before that, in 1939, president Hutchins had banned football and gave up Chicago’s Big Ten slot to focus on “the life of the mind”—a phrase one heard used all the time around campus without irony. It’s hard to believe, but Chicago was once a football powerhouse. In 1905 and 1913 the Maroons were national champions.
I went to U. of C. because Allan Bloom had given me a sense that this was a serious place, and I wanted very much to be a serious person. And although there was plenty of left wing undergraduate nuttiness, this was a good place to be a conservative. I never heard the term “Political Correctness” while at Chicago, and was introduced to it only afterwards, when I started hanging out with Ivy League types. The first person I met there was my first year (there are no “freshmen”) roommate, Robert Tracinski, a fellow with a jolly, cherubic face, and a ZZ Top-style red beard down to his navel. Robert was a devout Randian and co-founder of the U. of C. Objectivist Club. Today he writes for The Federalist, among other publications, and is a prominent conservative voice.
Chicago’s commitment to intellectual purity was so rarified, that it refused to grant an honorary law degree to Queen Elizabeth II when she visited in 1959. Bill Clinton was likewise snubbed in 1999. The College didn’t even offer a computer science major until the 2000s—it was deemed too “applied”. You had to settle for a math degree instead. When I inquired about doing a year abroad, like students do at a normal school, I was advised by the study abroad counselor to forget about it – I couldn’t possible get academic credit for something so obviously frivolous.
The law school, which I attended in the late 1990s was a magnet for conservatives and libertarians. In the 1950s and 60s it had given birth to the Law and Economics movement – a school of legal analysis closely linked with Milton Friedman’s economics department, located just across the Midway. This is the school that produced Robert Bork. Scalia taught there before Reagan put him on the DC Circuit and when I was there the faculty included prominent conservatives like Ronald Coase, Jack Goldsmith, 7th circuit judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, and Ricochet’s own Richard Epstein (one of the founders of the Federalist Society). John Lott, with his single-minded gun rights obsession, was a lecturer there.
I’m not sure that conservative students and faculty constituted a numerical majority at the law school, but they definitely dominated the intellectual life of the place—and, thankfully, the hiring committee. The student organizations included something called “The Ancient and Honourable Edmund Burke Society,” which served up spectacularly erudite political debate in an atmosphere of excellent booze and ridiculously stuffy sartorial standards.
One time I went to a talk by the indefatigable David Horowitz. On other campuses, Horowitz, who is something of a bomb thrower, inspires violent protests. At Chicago his visit was practically a non-event. The audience, composed mostly of law students, but also some undergrads, was small and polite. “Raise your hand if you’ve ever heard of Friedrich Hayek,” Horowitz challenged. Every hand in the room shot up. I think David was taken aback slightly. He shouldn’t have been—Hayek taught at Chicago in the 1950s (at Milton Friedman’s invitation) and wrote The Constitution of Liberty there. The University of Chicago Press was the first to publish The Road to Serfdom when no one else would.
What on earth was Obama doing there? Well, not much, from what I could tell. I was dimly aware that there was an Illinois state senator with a funny name on the faculty, but it never occurred to me to take a class with him. He was an academic nobody and, unlike the much more intelligent and prominent liberals on the faculty—Cass Sunstein, Geoff Stone, Martha Nussbaum—he was utterly disengaged from the intellectual life of the school. I don’t recall him ever participating in any seminars, discussions or any of the other frequent occasions for intellectual give and take. He was simply a non-presence – at the place but not of it.
Of course, this was all back in the Mesozoic era. What the place is like now I can’t say, but that welcome letter is a sign of health. Universities all across the country have been losing their academic purpose for a long time now. This stems from the fact that the academic elite that holds sway over university culture and sets the cultural and academic agenda is essentially nihilistic in its worldview. The nihilism undermines intellectual standards across all disciplines. The decline of freedom of expression and of thought as a value in society is horrifying to watch. My strong impression is that at Chicago the rot is not as deep as elsewhere, but it’s not immune to the larger cultural pathologies.
How Chicago has been able to maintain its distinctive culture of skepticism, empiricism, open inquiry and vigorous debate is a bit of a mystery. Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics states that any organization not explicitly right wing sooner or later becomes left wing. Chicago has been violating this law for a surprisingly long time. How long can this last? In the past universities were insular, inbred institutions, that could maintain their distinctive cultures for long periods of time. Edward Levi attended University of Chicago schools literally from kindergarten through law school. This is extremely rare nowadays. Universities compete vigorously for academic superstars, and this has led to the kind of homogenization and me-too groupthink that has given us those safe spaces and trigger warnings. Every place now looks and feels more or less like every other. In this competitive industry, Chicago’s “we’re different” approach could be a smart differentiation strategy.
Good luck to them. Go Maroons!
Published in General
Great essay. Bloom’s book is one of the scariest I’ve read and he knew what he was writing. I extracted the above from your essay just because I’m not sure ‘academic’ is the right descriptor for the trends under discussion. Hoping that the actions by the Chicago school become a trend though. Maybe the University of Missouri can learn from this after they digest their Fall 2016 entering freshman class numbers.
“Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.” – Lord Acton
My university days were spent at a small Catholic school. There were some students, a small minority of students that wanted to see ROTC removed from campus. The subject came up in one of my philosophy classes. The priest heard out the arguments and responded, if you are concerned about a monolithic military how does removing ROTC from this campus or any other campus alleviate the problem of a monolithic military. All you will have done is ensure that the entire officer corps will be educated in the cloistered halls of the military academies.
That was the end of the discussion, not that the priests were ever going to let the lunatics run the asylum. Alas some Catholic campuses are Catholic in name only, but not all. Good for the University of Chicago some things are worth fighting for.
Yay, The College of The University of Chicago!
My poor, Yalie Dad is, somewhere, groaning…
Oblomov, you had such a surfeit of Conservative greatness to draw from that you forgot to mention Saul Bellow!
As I give the Chicago statement a standing ovation I also weep over the fact that it is necessary and that it is something worthy of notice in the sea of insanity that is modern elite higher education.
The hiring of Obama was a big mistake. What Chicago did was to engage an instructor with absolutely zero law-related scholarship, probably only because he was black, and by doing so gave him the patina of being a legal scholar, which he later used as candidate and president to silence his critics when he made glaring mistakes about the law and the Constitution.
I’m not sure it was a mistake. In my own personal opinion, Obama was qualified to be an assistant professor of political science at Northern Illinois University. That would have been an ideal job for him, one where he would have done only very limited damage. However, academic and racial realities being what they are, Obama was a super hot academic commodity.
After Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress against Bobby Rush, Dean Fischell sat him down and said, Barack, clearly politics is not for you. Why don’t you buckle down, write an article or two, and we will give you a tenure track professorship. The mistake was they didn’t push him hard enough to take the offer. Most likely though, he wasn’t capable of writing any real scholarship and he knew it.
That’s true. Bellow and Bloom were still there. There were some less well known teachers too: Nathan Tarcov, Joseph Cropsey, others. I’m pretty sure I overlapped with Yuval Levin when he was getting his doctorate there. He speaks very well of Chicago too.
I only disagree in the sense that he was certainly not qualified to hold a full-time post in Poli. Sci. at Northern Illinois. Every current member of that Poli. Sci. faculty has a PhD. in a related discipline, while a JD, though perfectly sufficient for a law school, is usually insufficient in a poli. sci. department.
A reasonable academic spot for Obama, in my opinion, would be in the undergraduate Legal Studies department at U. Mass. They are all as liberal as he is. Or, like Ward Churchill, in an ethnic studies department somewhere based solely on his ethnicity.
Bugs would be proud.
If Scott Walker was the Republican nominee, we probably would be learning more about Obama’s academic record.
Daughter S is about to start her senior year at The College. She has had a GREAT experience. If any Rico-parents are interested I will be happy to give you a current parent’s perspective. Feel free to PM.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of Hutchins’ anti-football statement, behold the library that was built on the site of the demolished football stadium:
Does it glow in the dark?
You know: so students can find it. (That’s some bad architecture.)
Variation on a theme.
As Huxley College President Wagstaff (Groucho) says in Horsefeathers, “We can’t afford both a college and a football team. Tomorrow we start tearing down the college.”
Yup, that’s the Reg (sorry, the “Joseph Regenstein Library”). I agree, it’s not easy on the eyes. But at least in my day it was by far the center of social life on campus. That’s where you would go if you were interested in meeting a member of the opposite sex. It’s an oddball place, Chicago.
Actually, there was a persistent urban legend that certain parts of the library were radioactive from Enrico Fermi’s Manhattan Project experiments, which where conducted in a squash court under the bleachers of the old Stagg Field. Personally I doubt it. In any case, I never noticed that it glowed.
On the other hand, the new Mansueto Library, built right next to the Reg, is quite cool:
The University of Chicago DOES have a football team. It’s just that no one knows it.
Here is the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression.
I”ve long been partial to this one but now I wonder why.
It’s an interesting post, and I’m sure Chicago was/is a wonderful place to go to class, but Chicago is kind of an outlier in a variety of ways. So I don’t know if Chicago is really the example that administrators are going to look at and say “wow we should adopt that model.” I
I think the more important data point would be University of Missouri’s tumble in donations and applications after the protests.
Quite possibly, although the U of C’s world-wide reputation does carry weight and given the strength of its statement, I expect that some other schools might be embarrassed by their own feckless behavior.
On the other hand, Princeton signed on to the U of C statement on freedom of expression in 2015, but that didn’t stop their HR department from this idiocy. You are right, Oblomov, to use the word “glimmer.”
@goldgeller
@sandy
Also bear in mind that an unusually large chunk of U of C’s students go into academia, so it will have an influence on the next generation.
This…MEANS something!
I had thought of that, but they should be having an influence now and I don’t see that they have been able to affect their colleagues, to say nothing of administrators. I spoke with some recently at an old New England college and although they themselves in their classrooms have stuck by their standards and privately condemn it, they have felt the heavy hand of political correctness.
I have a degree (MLA) from the University of Chicago and know well a retired professor from there. I’ve heard that a senior law professor was very upset by the hiring of Obama. He was told that it was simply a holding position for a budding politician. I’ve never heard anyone state this on the record. Does anyone else heave confirmation for this. It’s hard arguing this with liberals when you don’t have a solid reference for it.
When I’m going to comment on Ricochet about a Supreme Court case I usually read it first to make sure I know what I’m talking about.
Obama commented in his state of the union speech, when he knew the world would be watching, about Citizens United and he totally misstated the issue and the holding, leading to Alito’s famous head shake and “Not true,” pantomime.
I think it’s not unfair to say that Obama has never said anything about the Constitution or a Supreme Court case that was accurate.
Oblo,
Just got to your post (busy weekend). This is fantastic news. Let the word go forth amongst all center to right people. If your child is of that age, to U. of C. they shall apply. What profit is there in getting into Harvard or Yale or any other super school when your voice will be crushed. Your chance to hear the best intellects will be eliminated. You will be subjected to constant propaganda and harassment.
We need a conservative rating system for Higher Education Institutions. If it’s 1 to 10 and U. of C. gets a 10 we need to make the data known pronto for all the other institution. Parents why spend ludicrous amounts of money and subject your child to an anti-intellectual psychotic environment? Let the idiots fight to get into the ivy-covered rats nests. Have your child apply to an approved list of quality schools where some of the people have already read Hayek.
Regards,
Jim