Dozens of faculty members have recently signed a letter calling on the University to take a public stance against the second Trump administration’s crackdown on higher education, which has included visa revocations and research funding cuts.
“We ask that the President and Provost commit, in writing and in public, to the defense of the University and its ideals,” the letter, addressed to UChicago faculty colleagues, reads. “We firmly believe that the joint commitment of peers to these ideals, and to mutual defense of them, is our best hope for sustaining the institutions to which we have dedicated our professional lives.”
The letter indicates a growing frustration among some faculty members that the University has not joined in “collective efforts to defend academic freedom in the United States.” In the past week, over 250 faculty members signed a separate petition asking President Paul Alivisatos to sign the April 22 American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) statement opposing “government overreach” into higher education institutions.
The faculty letter points to faculty senates of other Ivy Plus universities and member institutions of the Association of American Universities that have passed or are in the process of passing resolutions reaffirming their commitment to academic freedom. On April 6, the Rutgers University Senate passed a motion calling for the creation of a “mutual defense compact” with other Big Ten Conference universities, an alliance that would allow those universities to pool funds and legal resources in light of fears of government overreach into academia. Since then, faculty senates from more than one third of the 18 universities in the Big Ten have signed resolutions urging administrators to join.
The faculty letter also cites that several faculty senates are requesting public statements of solidarity from their leaders. At Yale University, the faculty senate circulated a letter to all faculty asking the university to commit to challenging “unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self- governance.”
The UChicago faculty letter similarly outlines six commitments for the University to make, which include affirming “the absolute right to academic and political speech, within the bounds of civil engagement, by all members of the community,” refusing to assist in “the removal of any person from the university on grounds of the content of their speech,” and resisting outside pressure that could “affect appointments, teaching, grading, research, or hiring.”
The list of demands reads nearly identically to those detailed in Classics professor Clifford Ando’s Maroon op-ed, “The Lines We Will Not Cross.” Ando, who has criticized what he sees as a continued lack of response from University administration, was the original author of the letter and first sent it to the Committee of the Council on April 2.
The committee is a seven-member group chosen from members of the Council of the University Senate. The committee’s rules of procedure allow faculty members to send memoranda to the committee proposing agenda items on “topics of general concern.” Memoranda are then brought to the entire 51-member council during monthly meetings, at which the president and the provost are usually present.
According to committee member professor Julie Orlemanski, the letter has been circulated to all council members, but discussion of the letter was not on the agenda for the council’s April 29 meeting.
UChicago has been less outspoken than some of its peer institutions in denouncing demands from the White House instructing universities such as Harvard and Columbia to place departments under academic receivership and roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Alivisatos wrote an email to the University community on April 25 addressing the “profound political contestation regarding the future of institutions of higher education” but stopped short of making concrete commitments and included no direct mention of the Trump administration.
He wrote of “important interests at stake at this moment, as well as a set of obligations that we must and will honor.”
The University wrote in an April 28 public statement that it “has a long-standing practice of not joining collective statements written by others.” The University has in previous instances invoked the 1967 Kalven Report, which articulates its philosophy of refraining to comment on social and political issues of the day to afford its individual members freedom of expression. “While the University’s advocacy may not always be visible, it is ongoing,” the statement continued.
Alivisatos did not join more than 560 other higher education leaders from across the country in signing the April 22 AACU statement titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” The leaders of seven of the eight Ivy League institutions signed the statement, as well as those of several Chicago-area universities, including the presidents of Northeastern Illinois University, Northwestern University, Chicago State University, and Dominican University.
The number of UChicago faculty urging Alivisatos to join those leaders continues to grow.
“With higher education in the United States under threat, the University of Chicago cannot remain silent,” the final sentence of the petition reads.
Editor’s note, April 30, 3:40 p.m.: This article was updated to include mention of the University’s “Statement on Advocacy” released publicly on April 28.
Grabiel Kaermer / May 7, 2025 at 10:01 pm
A wise man said that cowardice is underrated because bravery is mostly bad decisionmaking. It is evident that the university is either displaying cowardice, avoiding bad decision-making, or both.
Brian Sullivan A.B. '84 / May 1, 2025 at 8:33 am
As an alumnus of The College, I was stunned and highly disappointed at the University’s failure to join the AAC&U statement. At first, I thought that it might be a misguided exercise of our university’s famed exceptionalism. But, as time passed and list of signatories grew, I sensed the odor of cowardice.
President Alivisatos’s subsequent email to the community (which many of us never received directly) only heightened that perception. That communication was filled with platitudes and devoid of any meaningful references to the current climate in which insitutions of higher education are facing the greatest challenges I can ever recall in this country’s history.
By omitting any mention of the AAC&U statement (the elephant in the room), the President’s email insulted the intelligence of our community. We know that the leaders of over 500 colleges and universities have signed onto a pledge to resist the government overreach that seeks to constrain their choices of curricula, professor and students. That our beloved university chose to absent itself from that group is almost too much to bear.
zman "the garbage man" / May 1, 2025 at 1:26 am
I wonder how many alumni and donors would urge President Alivisatos to keep his pen capped and his mouth shut. Let those other universities stand in front of the Trump freight train.
Student today, abductee tomorrow? / Apr 30, 2025 at 9:50 pm
Order and business as usual are Alivisatos’ preference. This has meant favoring Greek dictatorship over the nuisance of his peers’ cries for democracy, continuing to invest in the extermination of the Palestinian people, and turning his back on his own students and colleagues as the federal govt draws a target on their backs. I am imagining the kind of self-congratulatory platitudes Paul would send out if Stephen Miller literally started having us rounded up and executed on the quad. “These are trying times for higher education, but UChicago has been a beacon for fearless inquiry, and by staying true to a few core principles we will continue to blaze ahead”
Nick Mach / Apr 30, 2025 at 5:30 pm
Reading all these articles in the Maroon, one cannot help but be reminded of The Treason of the Intellectuals (1927), by Julien Benda.
Benda warned that when intellectuals abandon universal values like truth and justice to serve political ideologies, they betray their essential role in society. This critique resonates today amid debates over “wokeism” and Marxist influence in U.S. academia.
For those too lazy to read it, the key takeaways from Benda’s work are:
Intellectuals Must Transcend Politics
Benda argued that scholars should pursue truth, not activism. Critics of academic “woke” ideology claim many professors now push political agendas over objective inquiry—echoing Benda’s idea of betrayal.
Ideology Over Truth Erodes Scholarship
When intellectuals adopt rigid ideologies, truth becomes secondary. Some say this is evident in departments dominated by identity or Marxist frameworks, where dissent is discouraged.
Moral Absolutism Breeds Intolerance
Benda criticized political moralism that stifles open debate. Today, critics argue that activist causes—like rigid anti-racism doctrines (hypocritically, which are purely racist)—can suppress intellectual diversity.
Politicized Education Weakens Democracy
Benda feared intellectuals stirring emotion instead of reason. Likewise, some say universities now prioritize activism over critical thinking.
Progress Needs Reason, Not Zeal
Benda supported Enlightenment values and feared ideology would undermine them. Critics argue that unchecked activism is eroding public trust in higher education.
Given these principles, Harvard and all of the rest of the targeted Universities should lose ALL Federal funding. These private institutions are free to indoctrinate anti-antisemitism, lunatic woke ideology, DEI (read: racial discrimination), but not with a dollar of Federal funding. Let them keep drinking their own intellectual poison, time will take care of the rest.
The University of Chicago is right to stay away from this mess. However, The Treason of the Intellectuals inside The University of Chicago must be dealt with expeditiously.
Nuck Mach / Apr 30, 2025 at 5:23 pm
Reading all of these articles in the Maroon, one cannot help but be reminded of The Treason of the Intellectuals (1927), by Julien Benda.
Benda warned that when intellectuals abandon universal values like truth and justice to serve political ideologies, they betray their essential role in society. This critique resonates today amid debates over “wokeism” and Marxist influence in U.S. Academia.
Key takeaways from Benda’s work:
Intellectuals Must Transcend Politics
Benda argued that scholars should pursue truth, not activism. Critics of academic “woke” ideology claim many professors now push political agendas over objective inquiry—echoing Benda’s idea of betrayal.
Ideology Over Truth Erodes Scholarship
When intellectuals adopt rigid ideologies, truth becomes secondary. Some say this is evident in departments dominated by identity or Marxist frameworks, where dissent is discouraged.
Moral Absolutism Breeds Intolerance
Benda criticized political moralism that stifles open debate. Today, critics argue that activist causes—like rigid anti-racism doctrines (hypocritically, that are fully racist)—can suppress intellectual diversity.
Politicized Education Weakens Democracy
Benda feared intellectuals stirring emotion instead of reason. Likewise, some say universities now prioritize activism over critical thinking.
Progress Needs Reason, Not Zeal
Benda supported Enlightenment values and feared ideology would undermine them. Critics argue that unchecked activism is eroding public trust in higher education.
Given these principles, Harvard and all of the rest of the targeted Universities should lose ALL Federal funding. These private institutions are free to indoctrinate anti-antisemitism, lunatic woke ideology, DEI (read: racial discrimination), but not with a dollar of Federal funding. Let them keep drinking their own intellectual poison, time will take care of the rest.
The University of Chicago is right to steer clear of this mess, but The Treason of the Intellectuals inside The University of Chicago also need to be dealt with expeditiously.