The University and the Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression hosted “Chicago Principles at Ten Years” on January 31. University President Paul Alivisatos and the original authors of the 2015 “Report of the Committee for Freedom of Expression”—now known as the Chicago Principles—discussed the document’s legacy and ongoing importance on its 10th anniversary.
Over 100 institutions have now adopted the Chicago Principles, which have become central to the University’s identity.
Alivisatos opened the event with a keynote address highlighting the uncertain future of free inquiry and expression at colleges and universities across the United States.
“We face a crisis regarding free expression and academic inquiry in universities,” Alivisatos said, pausing for effect.
“The headwinds we face are twofold. First, deference to conventional wisdom has stifled inquiry in a number of disciplines, some quarters of higher education prize activism over inquiry, important social questions go unaddressed because of fear of the answers, and errors persist because of fear of disagreeing with popular positions. This itself is an emergency,” Alivisatos said.
“The failure of academia writ large to engage with this problem substantively has eroded trust amongst a large segment of our citizenry, and even the most basic benefits universities provide to society are now in dispute.”
However, a lack of social trust is not the only problem facing universities, according to Alivisatos. Equally threatening to academic freedom, he continued, is the rise of “government intervention” resulting from the loss of societal trust in the academy: “Consider the example of the adoption of policies in many states that explicitly ban the teaching of certain controversial ideas and theories in public higher education institutions.”
“It is of the utmost importance that political dictation of American universities be resisted, for each concession… encourages new encroachments,” Alivisatos said, quoting former University President Edward H. Levi.
“I could not agree more [that] when governmental entities or external forces censor the free expression of faculty and students and seek to compel conformity, the possibility for universities to remain places of genuine truth-seeking is put at dire risk. This kind of remedy can kill the patient.”
Alivisatos then asked the audience what the “path forward” was for the University.
“Today we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Chicago principles, and in doing so, we have a chance to think together about how they can lead us toward resolution to this crisis a decade ago, when the principles were written… so-called cancel culture, shutting down speakers, the call for safe spaces, and more heralded a new and rather terrible moment,” Alivisatos said.
“[Former University President Robert] Zimmer understood the threat this posed, and he worked with a remarkable group of faculty to codify the Chicago principles, to state them plainly and forthrightly as they had arisen from our history and practices to reaffirm [that] education should not be intended to make people comfortable. It is meant to make them think.”
Alivisatos concluded by urging students and faculty to maintain the culture that allows the Chicago Principles, stating that “the relative lack of diversity of political orientation on campuses compared to society at large puts [a] severe onus on the need to be even more open to minority viewpoints.”
Five of the seven authors of the Chicago Principles—Geoffrey Stone, former chair of the committee and Edward H. Levy Distinguished Service Professor of Law at UChicago Law; Kenneth Warren, Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor of English; Marianne Betrand, Chris P. Dialynas Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the Booth School of Business; Amanda Woodward, dean of the social sciences and William S. Gray Professor of Psychology; and Columbia University Provost Angela Olinto—were in attendance for a conversation moderated by Forum Faculty Director Tom Ginsburg.
Stone began by discussing the historical roots of the Chicago Principles.
“It’s important to understand that universities in this country have not historically been committed to what we today would call academic freedom. Until the Darwin era, universities basically regarded themselves as institutions committed to advocating and teaching a particular set of principles and a particular set of views. That’s what they were that began to change in the Darwin era. But even then, there was strong pressure on institutions not to go too far in that direction, as they became increasingly dependent upon donors around the turn of the 20th century,” he said.
“[But] Chicago was unique in this regard, because from our very founding we made clear that we are an institution committed to free, open discourse, debate and discussion without any kind of censorship of ideas. And so, in creating a committee, the basic idea was not to simply state that reality, but to offer a set of views about how that manifests itself in practice.”
From her perspective as an administrator, Woodward observed that “in some ways, the Chicago principles make a dean’s life easy.”
“I have had on several occasions petitions signed by thousands of people, many of them academics, calling for the punishment or even firing of somebody in my division who has expressed an idea that they don’t like,” she continued. “And the Chicago principles give me a very clear way to respond to that situation, which is… to say that person’s views are their own, and we absolutely defend their right to express them.”
While Warren was initially reluctant to join the committee, he was convinced of the need for a report while working on it.
“It was really over the course of the committee’s work, [that] I came around to the idea that a statement might be a good idea, and this was particularly after having heard from our staff members in student affairs who were, so to speak, on the front lines and said that some delineation of the university’s principles would help them feel they were not flying by the seat of their pants as they tried to advise and direct students as events were unfolding,” he said.
Ginsburg concluded by asking the audience to remember that “we all share responsibility for a healthy civic space.”
Following the conversation, a number of breakout faculty panels examined issues including free expression and technology, the current political environment, and the future of free speech.
Matthew G. Andersson, '96, Booth MBA / Feb 2, 2025 at 9:04 pm
This event, hosted by administration, is a marketing program, one largely acting to reinforce belief structure, and interestingly, expressing its own selective political defiance, and soliciting group solidarity. It is itself a political speech act. Such beliefs are most effective when they are not true. As part of such marketing programs, it is otherwise not an actual position of university behavioral tolerance–otherwise “Statute 21” would not exist. Free speech policy serves to circumscribe speech conduct, especially to the extent that it serves corporate, state or political party interest. Indeed, such policy may also restrict university research that falsifies corporate/state doctrine or programs that present financial conflict. The BSD is an example. University administration otherwise behaves as an effective agent of those interests (even if socially violent). It is important for students and faculty to appreciate that you otherwise do not require permission or institutional guidance to exercise speech rights, which are inherent property; moreover the act of protesting must by definition violate some dimension of positive law, otherwise it would not possess meaning, or utility. This is why “peaceful protest” is a non sequitur, unless you believe in peaceful oppression: Free speech is a risk act, not a group social contract, which universities seek to advance. The University’s speech suppression and coercive police action, between Q1 2020 and Q1 2024, otherwise belies this marketing gesture, which serves in some ways to diminish recollection, and liability. Readers may wish to see “The University of Chicago Isn’t Living Up to Its “Principles,” at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, and “Will Universities Ever Admit They Were Wrong About Covid Policy,” in American Thinker.