Hopefully This Is The Beginning Of A Trend

[Kathianne]

There are reasons I love this school. Here's another:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/25/university-chicago-rolls-alarming-message-safe-space-advocates/


University of Chicago rolls out alarming message to “safe space” advocates

POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON AUGUST 25, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW


In a crushing blow to special snowflakes and Social Justice Warriors around the nation, the University of Chicago has issued a clear directive on the subject of free speech to the incoming class of hopeful students. There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings at this university and the exploration of ideas – even those which may be disagreeable or even offensive to some – will not be suppressed (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/24/u-chicago-to-frosh-no-safe-spaces-here.html). (Fox News)



The University of Chicago, one of America’s most prestigious and selective universities, is warning incoming students starting this fall not to expect safe spaces and a trigger-free existence during their four-year journey through academia.

In a letter sent to the class of 2020, university officials said one of the defining characteristics of the school was its unwavering commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. Civility and mutual respect are vital to the campus culture, the letter states, but not at the expense of shielding students from unpopular opinions or ideas.

“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,” the letter states.



While the initial movement toward so-called “safe spaces” on our nation’s campuses was treated with some degree of amusement by many, the trend grew to alarming proportions throughout 2015 and this year as well. The rejection of speakers who promoted ideas – generally conservative ones – which liberal professors and their brainwashed students objected to did nothing but expand the walls of groupthink which have come to define our colleges. Far more disturbing was the acceptance of the idea that differing opinions could even cause harm and required safe retreats for students where they could be shielded from concepts which conflicted with their established world view.

Such patterns of behavior do nothing to prepare students for life in the real world where one meets others from all walks of life who may challenge their accepted notions. These hothouse flower environments leave graduates with a dangerous weakness when they enter the workplace or move out to start families of their own in diverse communities. The University of Chicago is to be congratulated for this “bold” stand in support of free speech and debate. It’s what makes an open society flourish.

I frequently make a point of citing the tuition at colleges and universities where thought police control the minds of students, hopefully inspiring parents to not flush their money down such rat holes. At the University of Chicago the annual bill is not cheap, coming to $50,997. But in this case, families might find it money well spent if they want their offspring to stand a chance in a competitive world.

[Abbey Marie]

:clap:

[Little-Acorn]

Excellent.

The big problem is, there are still thousands of colleges who still do not have that attitude.

[Kathianne]

Well it's not like the freshmen didn't have warning, though most probably already were aware of the report and agreed with it:

http://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/sites/freeexpression.uchicago.edu/files/FOECommitteeReport.pdf


Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression

The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014by President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs “in light of recent events nationwide thathave tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.” The Committee’s charge was todraft a statement “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, anduninhibited 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 statementreflects the long-standing and distinctive values of the University of Chicago and affirms theimportance of maintaining and, indeed, celebrating those values for the future.

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

...

More recently, President Hanna Holborn Gray observed that “education should notbe intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universitiesshould be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, andtherefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning ofstubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.”

...

[Kathianne]

Excellent.

The big problem is, there are still thousands of colleges who still do not have that attitude.

Yeah, not every university can be U of C. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

God forbid we have to fight another world war. I don't think even the military can whip much of today's fragile, spoiled youth into fighting shape mentally. Yes, I know not all kids are like this.

[Elessar]

It sounds good...but hopefully other places will stand up and defy the overburdening PC
movement and get common sense back into this land.

[Kathianne]

https://www.thefire.org/u-chicagos-academic-freedom-letter-a-win-for-campus-speech/


U. Chicago’s ‘Academic Freedom’ Letter a Win for Campus Speech [UPDATED]By Alex Morey (https://www.thefire.org/author/alexmorey/) August 25, 2016


The University of Chicago (UC) has pushed back against the nationwide trend toward student-led calls for censorship with a letter to incoming students (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/ito/files/acceptance_letter.jpg) telling them not to expect “intellectual ‘safe spaces’” when they arrive on campus this fall. FIRE hopes this will be the first of many requests from colleges and universities asking students to recommit to freedom of expression this academic year.


Importantly, UC has confirmed to FIRE that its statement that it does “not support so-called ‘trigger warnings’” is not a ban on that practice. Critics today have charged (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136303/university-chicago-attacking-academic-freedom) that the statement might undermine academic freedom: If UC had banned the use of trigger warnings outright, that would have affected the academic freedom of professors who might choose to use them as a pedagogical tool. If that was UC’s intention, then indeed the concern would be well-placed. Fortunately, UC spokesperson Jeremy Manier assured FIRE that professors maintain broad latitude to engage in teaching practices as they see fit or to accommodate student requests.


The letter, written by Dean of Students Jay Ellison, reads in its entirety as a staunch defense of academic freedom. Sent to incoming students along with the book Academic Freedom and the Modern University: The Experience of the University of Chicago (https://college.uchicago.edu/sites/college.uchicago.edu/files/attachments/Boyer_OccasionalPapers_V10.pdf), Ellison’s letter condemns certain recent phenomena that imperil free inquiry on college campuses:




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.

Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.




That UC has taken this bold and important step is no surprise to FIRE: UC is a leader among colleges and universities in its approach to freedom of speech. Last year, faculty members spearheaded the hugely influential Chicago Statement (https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf), which FIRE has endorsed (https://www.thefire.org/cases/fire-launches-campaign-in-support-of-university-of-chicago-free-speech-statement/) and promoted as a gold standard for universities articulating a commitment to free expression on campus.

...

[Kathianne]

I was glad the university stood up for free speech. Now there's work to be done on the SJW war on men:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/school-found-accusers-claims-meritless-still-punishes-the-accused/article/2600436


School found accuser's claims 'meritless,' still punishes the accused



By ASHE SCHOW (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/ashe-schow)(@ASHESCHOW (http://twitter.com/AsheSchow))
•
8/29/16 2:28 PM

<cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">The University of Chicago may have won some points by refusing to adopt (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chicago-u-to-the-crybullies-you-can-handle-the-truth/article/2600321) "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" for incoming freshmen, but its foray into social-justice activism still needs some work. Namely, its treatment of those accused of sexual assault.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">A male student, identified in court documents as John Doe, is suing UC after it found an accuser's claims "meritless," yet continued to punish and investigate him. Doe says in his lawsuit (http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/511000747-male-student-says-university-of-chicago-s-sexual-assault-policies-created-hostile-environment) that UC removed him from a physics lab where he worked with his accuser even after her complaint was found meritless.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">The school also rejected Doe's Title IX complaint claiming his accuser's friend retaliated against him, in violation of school policy. The school also adjudicated a second complaint from the accuser, even though she had already proven herself to be untrustworthy, and failed to acknowledge how her second complaint was also in violation of the anti-retaliation policy.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">The lawsuit alleges that the original accusations against Doe from his accuser were proven false through her "own public writings, which UC possesses."

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">UC appeared to be, for some reason, hell bent on punishing Doe, to the point that when adjudicating the accuser's second complaint, it used its 2015 student manual to hold Doe accountable for conduct that occurred in 2013.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">"It was impossible for John Doe to know whether his consensual physical encounters with Jane Doe in 2013 might violate subsequently created stringent mandates in UC's 2015 Manual," Doe's lawsuit said.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">Doe believes the school is using the updated manual "because it contains provisions less favorable to male students."

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">Doe's lawsuit also says that UC allowed the accuser to bring forth her second complaint against him — which he calls retaliation — but denied him from bringing forward a retaliation claim. Doe had sought outside legal advice on how to get his accuser to stop "publishing false statements about him." The accuser was able to use this to get her second complaint adjudicated.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">"Jane Doe initiated and consented to all contact with John Doe," the lawsuit said, meaning her "sole motivation for filing the sexual assault allegation was retaliation."
</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">Doe said UC created "a gender biased, hostile environment against males, like John Doe, based in part on UC's pattern and practice of investigating and disciplining male students who accept physical contact initiated by female students, retaliating against male students, and providing female students preferential treatment under its Title IX policies."

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">One of Doe's attorneys, Eric Rosenberg of Rosenberg & Ball, declined to discuss the case publicly "until the litigation is resolved."
</cnt>