Diversity on college campus. Filmmaker authors and professor and Yale Universitys and michigan and chicago. Its about 90 minutes. Good evening. I guess its evening time. For those who dont know me, im neil good man, dean here at university of chicago. I want to thank you for joining us for this evenings events. Sometimes controversial and even ideas that challenge popular wisdom bring to bear evidence. Such ideas can at times fuel advance or break throughs on most vexing questions interest problems of our day. Once of the most indes penceble pillars in Higher Education is the cardinal principal and practice of Academic Freedom, pursuit of idea concepts, evidence and knowledge and the passing on of such in our education of students. While the principal of Academic Freedom is essential freedom of american Higher Education, the university of chicago has distinctionive and held approach to Academic Freedom which im sure you will be hearing more this evening. The school of social Service Administration as professional school of social work bennes fits and contributed Academic Freedom in unfettered pursuit of ideas, that address the concerns of those vulnerable and marginalize. Contentious of social problems and we do so in search for real solution and so educate social equity and justice. The ideas we discuss dont just stay among the scholars but they are developed and can delivered to have tangle benefits to people and their lives. Ssa is oftentimes a crucible of ideas and implications in the best sense of the word who are searching to forge greater insight and light and enduring solution out of what is oftentimes the heat of polarized over simple fiez and not tested ideas or strategies. A second pillar in Higher Education is diversity on fall View Community individuals from different backgrounds live experience and statuses especially those from unrepresented or societial inclusion this argue bli the most institution in our society which fosters entering into sben gra intergrags into mainstream. All of its members are enriched by the mutual expose your to divergent experience, backgrounds and view points. In this way our value on diversity is intertwined in a branch from the same tree as Academic Freedom. Is bring too universities and experience brings with it questioning the a assumptions of challenge of prevailing idea, the again at university of chicago, ssa, given were school of social work, inclusion, and access, and reaching ground understanding and those marginalized. Because of the value of the ideas served complementary values for the reason of the ssa hosting this evenings on this topic. For this, i especially want to thank ssa professors for their initiative in working with my office to putting together this evenings panel. As well as before she does that i also want to thank university of chicago president who provided his vision and leadership on this issue here at the university of chicago, bob. Let me say how much i appreciate the idea of hosting this panel and hosting this discussion on this topic. The topic joint topics should say of Academic Freedom and its companion, Free Expression and diversity, which i like thinking about a bit more bro broadly and particularly so for the university of chicago. Neil described very beautifully why these are so important. I might just offer my own take on this, which is to start, universities are not just a random collection of people who are here doing what they feel like doing. And the mission finding vehicles of the impact of that education and research. If we are going to do the students justice, if well have an environment and prepare themselves it is a court to the functioning of the university in fulfilling the core missions. In a similar way the diversity for two reasons neil eluded to. First, if one will be engaged having a bunch of people all from the same background and similar perspectives sitting around fundamentally agreeing with each other is not the way to make serious events and not the way to create an environment of intellectual challenge so backgrounds and believes for the kind of rigorous analysis that underlies for the success. There is another reason diversity is so important. That goes beyond the university itself of, which is that universities does not exist in isolation. It exits in a societal context and exists in history. Its no surprise to anyone that the history of really all countries, but the very particularly this country has an enormous amount of collusion nar behavior built into its history. We have therefore a dual obligation, an obligation as fulfilling our own mission and bringing those diverse perspectives there but we also have an obligation as an important member of society to deal with the particular history of this country and the exclusionary aspects that have been involved in it. I think neil articulated the meaning of ssa very nicely in terms of doing that from the point of view. It has an obligation that direction. Now, some people have argued that these two issues are in conflict to some extend, that Academic Freedom and Free Expression on one hand and diversity and exclusion on the other hand are in conflict. Saying that theres no tension between them would be disingenuo disingenuous. It is that one needs to recognize there are tensions that need to be worked out. Anything less than an aspiration to fully embrace both of these values is failing ourselves as an institution. I think the reason that we are able to have such a discussion goes back to what we were saying, its an kpafrp of open discourse and rigorous analysis and Free Expression. So it just be i want to thank neil and faculty here at ssa for organizing this and im sure youll have a fascinating evening. Thank you very much. Thank you. I will be the moderator this evening. I will take several roles that i will explain in a moment. I would like to extend a special thanks to my faculty and staff. I am humbled to see we are at stranding room only. The success of this dialogue in this practice deeply rests with each of you. I will explain that more in a moment. We will proceed by giving a brief introduction to this panel. I will introduce each of the panelists. They will each talk for about ten minutes. I will then pose a question to them. We probably wont i have given them four questions. We will probably get through one or go. I will transition us to this evenings informal event. It is a bit of a social experiment that is to come. So in 1915 the American Association of university of professors laid the foundation for much of todays understanding of Academic Freedom and tenure. And we were shaping these long before the 1915 statement. Most recently in 2014 ie zachs formed a special committee on freedom of expression chaired by one of our panelists that restates the universities enduring commitment and a resolute core principal and value here at this institution. President simer has already referenced this and im sure professors will likely discuss this and their leadership in our universitys contemporary practice of this in their individual remarks. For the contemporary university, however, debates do persist around the limit of Academic Freedom in the context of growing on campus and a climate that is inclusive to a demographically diverse student, staff and faculty body. This year the university of chicago dean of students issued a welcome statement to students reaffirming to Academic Freedom and our constitutional rejection of silencing or avoiding uncomfortable or disagreeable ie ideas or perspectives. This was met with vigorous National Response more deeply positioning university of chicago itself as a symbol of Academic Freedom. This afternoon is a time for us as a University Community to engage with each other and fully practice this freedom. It is my hope that we all deepen our understanding of and ability to critically understand the ways which this value is interpreted and practiced. Now i would like to briefly introduce our expert panel. We are deeply honored to have each one of you here. Each of our panelists is a distinguished scholar. I apologize in advance. Well stick to names and affiliations. To my far left is boyer, next we have jeff stone, Service Professor at university of chicagos law school. Next is professor graywall, associate professor, departments of religious study from yale university. And last but not least fprofessr of social work, psychology, college of literature and the inaugural director with that i would love for us to begin with you. Thank you very much. I thought i would talk about two subjects that are of some interest to me. I became interested from an administrative perspective. I came to write that book because of the there were a number of currents abroad in the land a as it were with a reaction to significant changes in our core curriculum at the time subsequently there have been other episodes and all too many and being criticized for things they would say. This is certainly a live issue. I want to say two things about it. First of all, from the point of view of the history of the university i published last year. It is available in the bookstore. Thats a plug, by the way. But i want to draw from that something that is unique and thats the european context. A and criticized and particularly the universities of berlin and big foreign and german Higher Education. Many of our founding faculty were trained or had studied at them. It was at least enough time to be able to draw it from inspiration on the practice of Economic Freedom. These were ideas that were rather strange for americans to comprehend. They were paid to actually do the states bidding. The states decided that the bidding had to do with creation of original research as a natural cultural product. In some ways there was an initial a tendency to create to create this new knowledge one had to allow and permit the faculty to have the freedom to do it. There was already built in in order to be perfectly as it were supporting cultural renewal it had to be free. It was really embedded from the fwining and the model that these Young Persons observed, partook of and wanted to bring over to the United States. They did it in a very powerful way. Many were trained in germany. They really selfconsciously or associate from fessers but but also in the way that they understand their rights and responsibili responsibility, the pride their work would carry with it. Such more concept of this professional maturity was the idea of being freed. It was also within the broader civic realm. One was a private citizen and could speak ones opinion bradl bradley. Wg chicagos history the idea became part of a bundle of concepts they used to reimagine what a university was. It seems to be a training institution. It became a sight for the advancement of scholarship. Not only did the faculty embrace this but they also began to understand their mission as teachers using the same concept. Because if they were scholars all due respect, for undergraduate education. These ideas did not immerge on contestant. There is one in which buys university actions. The willingness of universities themselves and patrons in the case of public yefrt state government. One finds very similar controversies in germany. I have written with a involve tire affairs. Everyone disagreeing how much were being to film those that were filming that freedom. I also want to mention that within the history of Higher Education in europe during this period, 1890 to 1914 one finds very powerful voices, what it meant for the dwrufrt as a corporation. His esz says and also then the desire to pull lack and sigh. We are our own persons and yet we are being paid for by the state. How does one assess those boundaries . I think certainly more than the new universities, chicago was very much the culture became independent. Feeling itself is almost a bearer of this great journal ideas. The kind of fi it didnt medd. It was very easy for the fact that they freed themselves from the practice of these values and these identities over time. It is this culture that Robert Hutchens decided several of the things that he has written. He was able to do what he did and to defend the value of Economic Freedom. It makes no sense at all to me. I want to make the second set of comments and thats the impact on the community. I have argued that the practice of Economic Freedom has become a it gels between about 1920. It has an effect if one sees students as protoscholars who are joining a process by which they are expected to acquire the skills of a scholar then over time especially over the generations one begins to nurture not only a way which faculty relate to students but the students relate to each other. One finds it a very intensive interactive. It was not typical. I think its important to remember this culture was not only going to it was infused by parallel ideas of inherited wealth. The earliest student body, it was male and female. It was both were represented, very strong numbers. It was a very broad economic spectrum from all walks of life it gave the faculty an even greater reason to practice this kind of opinion but also the need of students from all walks of life. It has always been seen as maybe one that goes to the heart of scholarly practice. So one has a faculty culture that is very early set and gels around these ideas of Economic Freedom and brings the student culture into that culture of Economic Freedom. It has been quite its been there since 1920 and 1930. It is remarkable how it has been able to recreate itself. Thank you. I want to start by emphasizing that the reassurance of Free Expression is not something to be taken for granted. It is in fact vulnerable and always been so any commitment poses a serious risk to the core functioning of universities as we have come to understand them. So i think its important to go back a bit and understand how colleges and universities have evolved. If you go back to the early years there was no such thing as an assumption in the United States. The basic assumption of how the institutions operated was under moralism which meant ideas could be put forth by faculty or by students only in so far as they were consistent about what ideas were moeral and appropriate. Anyone who departed from the clear assumptions could be suspended, fired, expelled, whatever without anybody looking twice. What did it mean . It meant one could not challenge the proposition that africans were inferior and a host of other values that were taken for granted as a given. Anyone who challenged those ideas would not be argued with. They would be thrown out. If you mustve further in time as the United States moved towards civil war one of the most contentious issues was slavery. In that period lines were drawn very clearly. At universities and colleges in the north anyone could defend laboring and find itself thrown out of the institution. Anyone who challenged the moera legitimacy. Nobody questioned this. This was the authority to make judgments about what was right and what was wrong. If you did not speak in accord with those judgments you were out. Think of General Motors. General motors couldnt decide among employees what views they expressed are okay or not okay. If somebody says something General Motors doesnt want to hear they would be fired and nobody would say Academic Freedom. They would be fired. Thats the way colleges and universities operated. This came to ahead during the battle when the mainstream views and universities was committed to creationism and the idea was seen as not only sacrilege use but logically come pleeltly flawed and inappropriate. There were constitutions that fired and expelled students who advocated this radical and ridiculous idea of revolution. It was in that battle that for the first time the idea of Free Expression as a value of universities and Academic Freedoms began to crystallize. The idea being that institutions have to be places where people can challenge the accepted wisdom, where the accepted wisdom may not be right. It may not be true that africans are infer yod and womens place is in the home and homo sexuality is immoral. The ideas that they existed for the purpose of allowing it a challenge came over those years to be much more accepted the fist president of the the reality is any commitment to that has been contingent. Universities began to be supported to earn their money that any of t way in which we make our money. Thats not acceptable. You want our money, shut them up. They cant say those things. Universities found themselves but the condition was free expressi expression universities found themselves facedd with pressure to expel and fire them that was sympatheticic to communism. The push back was about freedom of expression. The university of chicago really stood pretty much alone in standing up against them. Hutchens stood up and said no. At this university our students are allowed to hear whatever ideas they want to hear. We will not silence them. And that characterized an ocean of Free Expression in the community. This has continued to be under assault and will always be under assault. Argue about it, think about it. By doing so it creates students and citizens who are capable of having those fights in the future, who are capable of dealing with ideas they find problematic and to fight it out and to win battles. And it is imp