University of Chicago students demand more ethnic segregation, punishment of fraternities and no punishment for disrupting speakers

I am working on a campus where I see Regressive Leftism daily, and now it’s taking the form of requests to create segregated facilities and curricula, to make fraternities official University of Chicago organizations so they can be punished, and to exempt students themselves from being punished when they disrupt talks they don’t like (this happened three times here in the last two years).

According to both the student newspaper, the Maroon, and to Campus Reform (a right-wing site), a group of U of C student multicultural organizations had a rally for an umbrella organization called UChicago United, and issued a list of no fewer than 43 demands. From the Maroon:

The organizations leading the rally, titled “We Demand,” were the African Caribbean Students Association (ACSA), Arab Student Association, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlan (MEChA), Organization of Black Students (OBS), Organization of Latin American Students (OLAS), and PanAsia Solidarity Coalition.

Around 50 people attended the rally, which was held outside Levi Hall, the University’s main administrative building.

During the rally, second-year MEChA member Maya Ruiz described the circumstances leading to UChicago United’s formation. The campaign grew out of a letter penned by several multicultural organizations in response to a construction-themed party held by Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) on Cinco de Mayo. Ruiz stressed, however, that FIJI’s party did not represent a unique incident.

“What FIJI did was not an isolated misunderstanding. It was just one event in a long and continuous history of racism and exclusion that runs deep into the culture and logic of this University,” she said.

Ruiz referenced e-mails exchanged by brothers of Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) that were leaked in February 2016 and included several racial slurs.

“Black, Palestinian, and Muslim students shouldn’t have to endure the pain of racist, xenophobic, sexist e-mails last year only to have the university step farther away from the fraternities today,” she said.

I wrote about the fraternity construction party earlier, which in no way I see can be construed as racist, but those earlier emails were reprehensible. However, since fraternities for University of Chicago students have no formal affiliation with the University (they’re purely private), the students can’t be punished for what they say, and one might consider that what their members say, however offensive, is still free speech.

Regardless. this week the the University of Chicago Faculty Senate approved the “Picker Report” on how to deal with student disruptions during demonstrations and talks. The previous codes were created after the campus disruptions of the Sixties, during which some students were actually expelled, but the 1970-1990s student disciplinary codes were a bit unclear because they didn’t define “disruptive conduct”, and sanctions were rarely if ever employed. Thus, in view of recent disruptions of speakers on campus, my University convened the “Picker Committee” (named after the law professor who headed it) to formulate University policy to clarify “disruptive conduct.” Students didn’t like this–at least the Regressive Leftists ones–for they want the right to disrupt any speaker they want without any possibility of suffering for their actions.

The report (Appendix V here) sets out in detail investigatory and disciplinary procedures for students who disrupt talks or campus activities.  Disruptive conduct was defined, with emendations of the previous definition, as follows:

Sanctions were laid out, including these:

  • Warning: An official letter is placed in the student’s educational record. A prior warning related to misconduct under Statute 21 must be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense.
  • Disciplinary Probation: During this defined period, a student may continue to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a student except as the Committee stipulates. A prior disciplinary probation related to misconduct under Statute 21 must be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense.
  • Loss of University Privileges: Specific student rights and privileges, such as access to certain University buildings, events, organizations, or employment, may be suspended for a defined period.
  • Discretionary Sanctions: The Committee may require the completion of additional academic work, community service, or restitution/fines by a given deadline
  • Disciplinary Suspension: For a period of no more than nine consecutive quarters, a student is prohibited from exercising any rights or privileges of a student at the University
  • Disciplinary Expulsion: An expelled student forfeits the rights and privileges of a student at the University. Ordinarily, the University will not consider a re-application for eleven consecutive quarters following the date of the expulsion.
  • Revocation of a Degree: A policy violation that occurred before a degree was awarded may lead to a Committee recommendation that a degree be revoked.

And these recommendations have already been incorporated into the University’s student manual on the University Disciplinary System. I do approve of the clarification of “disruptive conduct” and the spelling out of how student interruptions and disruptions will be investigated and punished. My own view, which I’ve stated here frequently, is that students should be removed from talks that they disrupt, that no student should be allowed to block access to a talk or shout down speakers, but that they have every right to protest without violating the conduct rules and every right to issue counter-speech or have counter-talks or demonstrations. And sufficiently severe or repeated disruption should mandate disciplinary action. That, it seems, is the University’s policy as well.

I think the approved Picker report is fair, but of course many students want to protest disruptively without being punished, and so that request is part of the 43 demands issued by UChicago United, which are here. They include these “demands”:


We demand that The University of Chicago formally recognize all Greek organizations active on the University of Chicago campus as Registered Student Organizations (RSOs). [JAC: This allows the University to discipline fraternities.]

We demand the creation of a University funded and run cultural houses, specifically a Black House, a Latinx House, and an Asian House that stand independent of the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs. These houses shall function similarly to The Center for Identity + Inclusion but will focus on the specified community.

We demand a Race and Ethnic Studies Department as well as an increased budget for programming carried out through the Center for the Study of Race, Politics, and Culture.

We demand that the University hire more faculty of color.

We demand that the university keep the 1970 Disciplinary System for Disruptive Conduct for the time being and suspend the faculty senate vote on the Picker Report. [JAC: That is, they want no real punishment for disrupting events.]

It goes on and on; remember, there are 43 of these.

Campus Reform summarizes the rest of the demands:

. . . a coalition of student groups known as “UChicago United” has called for the establishment of a “Race and Ethnic Studies Department,” a “Black Studies Academic Department,” an “African Studies Department,” a “Caribbean Studies Department,” an “Asian American Studies Program,” plus a “Center for African and Caribbean Studies” and a “Latinx Affairs Office,” all of which would exist independently but receive funding from the university.

The ultimatum also asks for a set of “university-funded and run cultural houses, specifically a Black House, a Latinx House, and an Asian House,” before turning its attention to the school’s core curriculum, demanding “a new ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ graduation requirement” that would be “primarily focused on any US-centric structural oppression, such as race, gender, and sexuality.”

Additionally, the document twice calls for “the creation of a pre-orientation program specifically for incoming students of color,” which would “familiarize students with campus resources and multicultural registered student organizations” while easing “the transition to the university’s campus climate and academic demands.”

The coalition also demands a “revitalization of the Bias Response Team,” including additional funding, the hiring of “individuals with the specific responsibility of running” the program, and the building of “infrastructure for transparent disciplinary processes against faculty and staff who are reported to the Bias Response Team.”

In contrast to its own appeals for money to fund the new initiatives, UChicago United also requests that “limits and/or restrictions” should be placed “on the funding allotted to student organizations that are accused and/or found guilty of discriminatory behavior.”

Finally, the set of demands concludes with specific requests for illegal immigrant students, asking for an increase in the “recruitment and admission” of “undocumented Latinx students,” as well as “full financial, legal, and mental health resources” for such students.

Having lived my academic life here, I’m trying to see which demands are justified, but right now all I can see is that students want more balkanization of the University, dividing up curricula and perhaps housing by race alone, even though they’d probably maintain that race is a social construct (it’s not clear whether the cultural centers would include student housing segregated by ethnicity).  In effect, the students are demanding that the University become a place of Identity Politics, with every group having its own center, grievances, and demands for hiring and changes in curricula.

This is sad, but I have confidence that the University won’t cave to most of these demands, as some other schools have. Insofar as there really is bigotry here, that should be investigated and if it violates student codes, punished; but it makes me sad that what seems like segregation is increasing, not only here but elsewhere. Perhaps it’s just my Sixties idealism, but it seems to me that what we want is not more separation of groups, but finding ways to bring them together, for it’s my belief that the best way to eliminate bigotry is to get to know people from other classes, ethnic groups, nations, and so on. Yet students everywhere seem to want to separate themselves as much as possible from other groups, and of course from “cis-het white males”. And while students are welcome to give input into the curriculum, it’s presumptuous to think that they should dictate their curriculum.

h/t: Mark


  1. Joseph Stans
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    The uniersiity of Chigago, longheld in high esteem byt my family, is no scartched from th elistof chices for Universities for my gand children. Thye did this, not I. The brainless pronounce ments by member of the student body really left them no choice.

  2. dd
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Sounds like lots of groups are supporting this…yet around 50 people show up for a rally?

    I think the term “Latinx” is funny as it represents a “linguistic colonizing” of Spanish by English speakers. Ironic.

    In terms of the self-segregation, Isn’t that the idea of multiculturalism? Different communities living side by side with their different values and mutual respect? What’s not to like?!!!! (I believe that was also Tony Blair’s notion, under whose government the UK multiculturalized.)

    • Martin Levin
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      I noterd that as well: 50 people, but they do make a lot of noise.

      • Martin Levin
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        Er, “noted.”

    • Jonathan Dore
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      That was what struck me too — a claim to represent 43 groups, yet only 50 individuals. A lot of these groups must have memberships in single figures, and those writing the demands are perhaps not even representative of that small number.

      • Richard
        Posted May 27, 2017 at 4:00 am | Permalink

        Ah, but perhaps some of those individuals belong to more than one group. Intersectionality, remember?

    • Zach
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      In terms of the self-segregation, isn’t that the idea of multiculturalism? Different communities living side by side with their different values and mutual respect?


      I actually had the thought yesterday, that multiculturalism ought to be called “cultural segregation.” I also thought that doing so would be a good way to linguistically undercut the illiberal left because, you know, segregation is historically a bad thing.

      But this is literally what they want. So I’m at a loss.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      I noted the 50 as well. It’s not very many people and a lot of groups. Though of course any bigotry must be investigated, it sounds like this new group might have delusions of grandeur. And given that they grew out of shared grievance against a racist party that wasn’t actually racist, but just a lot of authoritarian leftists jumping to conclusions, delusion is their thing.

      Why are so many USians so angry and uptight? And at such an early age too.

      • BJ
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

        With regard to your last sentence, because they’re being taught to be:

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

          Something must be going on before they get to tertiary institutions though. And parenting must have a lot to do with it. Aren’t any of these kids taught the basic rules like treat others how you’d like to be treated yourself?

          • BJ
            Posted May 26, 2017 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

            Well, I think a lot of high school teachers now also come out of these regressive schools, and a lot of high schools are now doing “diversity initiatives” and the like, so I think the brainwashing is starting earlier.

            But I agree it’s also partly parenting. These days, parents are afraid to punish their kids when the kids don’t listen. I see it again and again: the parent tells the kid to stop doing something, the kid continues like the parent said nothing, and the parent just shrugs their shoulders and moves on. I’ve only just turned 32 this week, and if that happened when I was a kid, my mom would have pulled me aside and read me the riot act about listening when she tells me to do something.

            • BJ
              Posted May 26, 2017 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

              Your parenting thought might be part of why these kids are also so easily “traumatized” (although I think they use words like that hyperbolically most of the time, but when they don’t…). Their generation of parents have the kids as close to their sides’ as possible at all times, never letting them go anywhere alone, never letting them do anything dangerous or get hurt, and acting like it was the end of the world any time they scratched their knee.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted May 26, 2017 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

              I’m a lot older than you (53) and I would have got worse than a telling off. (Not that I’m advocating smacking – I’m against that. It’s not necessary as well as wrong.) As far as I’m concerned part of being a parent is teaching your kids how to behave. Other animals do a better job of that than some parents.

              • BJ
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 4:33 am | Permalink

                Indeed! And letting your kids get hurt and go on adventures (the more physical activity that increases the chance of broken bones, the stronger those bones will be later in life. Similarly, the more germs the immune system is exposed to, the more germs it can fight off. People are doing their kids really wrong with the way they’re treating them). Letting your kids go on adventures alone allows them to learn from mistakes, understand peer pressure, learn how important parents are, and a million and a half other things.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 10:21 am | Permalink

                I agree.

  3. Randy schenck
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    All these years I operated under the wrong concept. I assumed people went to college to learn and obtain degrees – to improve themselves and get a better chance in life. I had no idea that this assumption was wrong and now they attend schools of higher education to simply run or manage the schools. Stupid me. Where, I wonder, did they obtain these management skills? I also wrongly assumed these were hired positions.

    • GM
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      Well, last year, when the protests were at their peak, there were colleges where students were failing their classes because they were spending too much time on activism which left no time for homework and studying.

      Which is a logical extension of something I have been trying to explain to various identity politics thick heads for a long time, to no avail: if we assume that all people are inherently capable and talented, what determines who succeeds and who fails is how much time and effort people invest into their studies/work. Well, guess what happens when you invest a lot of time and effort into activism? Those “cis-het white males” you fear so much? They;re not doing any activism, they working their asses off while you’re out there holding signs and screaming at people like banshees or having your weekly women in science meeting telling each other how oppressed by the system you are. Guess where the cis-het white males will be 10 years from now and where you will be…

      But they refuse to listen, of course…

      P.S. If I was the president of one of the more prestigious universities, I would actually run the experiment, as this is sufficiently important to warrant the extra cost. We segregate the university by gender and race, isolating the “cis-het white males” from the rest, we do that for 10-15 years, we compare the outcomes in terms of educational and professional achievements. You can probably guess what my bet is — the cis-het male white and Asian groups will be miles ahead. We’ve done that experiment in the past when universities were full almost exclusively of cis-het white males and were doing perfectly fine. but it wasn’t properly controlled then by having the other groups side by side.

      • Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:46 am | Permalink

        I’m definitely not an SJW but this post is so full of nonsense I don’t even know where to begin. Good grief, when the SJWs are out protesting (“screaming like banshees” isn’t poisoning the well, nosirreee), the cis-het-white males -and of course Asians (as a token?)- are all out studying?


        Perhaps the most egregious is this;

        “We’ve done that experiment in the past when universities were full almost exclusively of cis-het white males and were doing perfectly fine.”

        “Perfectly fine”?!? The almost total lack of awareness of, I dunno… every minute of social reform in the past 75 years… in that statement is breath-taking.

        As much as I detest the regressive left, this kind of rhetoric is just as bad. A pox on both your houses.

        • GM
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

          The list of epochal scientific breakthroughs made prior to the 1960s-1970s is more impressive than what has happened since then. Fact

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

            Might wanna check out the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy there, dude — even assuming your unevidenced claim is in fact “fact.” (Been some pretty impressive scientific breakthroughs during the last half century.)

            • GM
              Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

              Sure, but the last truly major one was the Standard Model and that was done in the 1970s by people who grew up in a era where there were pretty much zero women in physics.

              The point is that there is zero evidence that we would get worse science if there were zero percent women and minorities in it. Science was not doing bad at all when that was the case.

              • fizziks
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 11:45 am | Permalink

                I am so anti-SJW that I can’t even describe it, so please take it seriously when I say that your postings are not helping.

                First of all, they contain easily dismissible flags. You complain about the lack of scientific progress while just in the past year we have the discovery, after a truly monumental effort, of gravitational waves. Beyond that, contemporary ongoing scientific revolutions such as the advance of AI systems, synthetic biology, precision cosmology, and exoplanets are just some of what’s out there that you seem to be unaware of which will probably all individually, let alone together, dwarf the amount of progress represented by the standard model of particle physics or perhaps anything from the 60s-70s era that you seem so enamored of.

                If fact, I’ll just come out and say that your comments read exactly the same as they would if they were a false flag meant to discredit anti-SJWism and anti-leftism. If you are in fact being genuine, please take that to heart.

              • GM
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

                Gravitational waves were not really discovered last year, they were confirmed. Same with the Higgs boson prior to that. A lot of that stuff has been out there theoretically for so long and supported by so many indirect lines of evidence, that most people in the field basically shrugged their shoulders “OK, finally it’s confirmed” without that much excitement.

                There hasn’t really been a major conceptual shift in understanding, which is what I was referring to.

                Same with exoplanets — it would be amazing if there weren’t expolanets and we were unique. That we are funding them is not amazing in any way.

                A lot of the AI research is way overhyped.


        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

          Well said.

        • BJ
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

          I can provide link after link of regressive “activists” telling their administrators and teachers that they should be able to skip tests, not be graded for a semester or receive a higher grade, and even get paid because it’s so hard and “emotionally traumatizing” to do all their “activism.”

          Here’s just one:

          Oh, why should I have to do homework at college? Don’t you know I’m doing *activism*?!?

          • Posted May 26, 2017 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

            That’s very nice of you, but it does nothing to support GM’s claims about cis-het-white men (and Asians!), much less how universities were “perfectly fine” when there weren’t any dark people or women around to bother the cis-het-white men.

            Also, if I gave links that showed cis-het-white men (and Asians!) protesting (some of them are SJWs too, you know) would help this conversation? Do you think those links would add anything?

            • BJ
              Posted May 26, 2017 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

              No, it has to do with your idea that it’s not all this supposed activism that is causing poor grades.

              • Posted May 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

                And where did you get the idea that that was my idea?

                I can take criticism of the things I say. I object to be criticized for the things I did not say.

              • BJ
                Posted May 26, 2017 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

                When you said, “Good grief, when the SJWs are out protesting…the cis-het-white males -and of course Asians…are all out studying?”

                I apologize unreservedly if I misunderstood your intent. Sorry about that.

              • mikeyc
                Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

                Meant in response to your comment down thread (i cant reply to it)
                No man, I owe YOU an apology. I shouldn’t let the attitude I detected in GM’s post get my knickers so twisted. I’m just tired of all the animosity and (in a deeply weird way) I reacted with animosity. Peace.

              • BJ
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 4:36 am | Permalink

                No worries, mikeyc. I appreciate your apology, too. We’re all imperfect human beings floating on a big rock in a nigh-infinite universe (that may be just one of many nigh-infinite universes!).

      • Randy schenck
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:02 am | Permalink

        Maybe a better experiment would be for a collection of individuals who believe the students should have all of this decision power, create and operate a school their way. Have the students operate the institution and see how it goes. I would not be in favor of testing the idea for them, let them run the whole deal.

        Out in the other world of private companies where do we see the workers also managing/running the company? Sure we have some employee ownership in places but even there, the employees do not manage the company and make structural decisions such as adding and eliminating departments.

        • Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:28 am | Permalink

          There are some co-operatives in the US where the employees are also the owners who run the show. I’m not sure how big they can get, the one I know of had about 20 partners/employees, but I assume that for a larger companies each employee’s input is so negligible that it’s not much different from a regular private company with stock incentives.
          I do want to see a student-run Social Justice University just to see how that works in the real world – how the students rule that university has to set up and fund all these cultural housings for every single oppressed minority, hire more minority staff, and open more departments, only to find out that their tuition goes up by quite a lot to pay for all that.

          • Randy schenck
            Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:55 am | Permalink

            The only employee owned coop type firms that I am familiar with are Farm COOPs. But even these hire an experienced manager to actually run the coop. The manager is generally always a college grad with a business degree or business/management. The board of directors are elected by the “shareholders” or owners/users of the COOP. So in this environment the Owners/shareholders, do not run the day to day operations, nor do they do the hiring and firing. The hired manager does these things. He also makes all the decisions on the buying and selling of grain by the COOP, which is usually the main business of a Farm COOP.

            • Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

              The coop I know of is a bakery, and to my knowledge, the employees are making the decisions on hiring/firing by some sort of a vote, and I think they have people assigned to specific day-to-day decision making.

              • Randy schenck
                Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

                It’s kind of like when someone talks about pure democracy. It does not scale up. What is that old saying…all chiefs and no indians. Anyway, I am simply attempting to provide a perspective, not from Academia. Besides, there is a big difference between students demonstrating and students demanding a voice in all areas of the institution’s management. It does not work in other institution and I don’t see it working in schools. Maybe they call it education by anarchy.

              • Posted May 26, 2017 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

                I think we both agree that the coop model won’t scale up to a larger enterprise like a university – which is why a student-run university would probably make a fascinating reality show, albeit not so much an educational institution.

              • Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

                “The coop I know of is a bakery”

                I read this as “coop”, like Chicken coop. Reminds me of an olde tyme joke.

                Why do chicken coops always come with two doors?

                Otherwise they’d be chicken sedans.

                Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week.

        • Denise
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

          The experiment I’d like to see is for every university to come down firmly on one side of this or the other. Give students and parents a clear choice about the kind of education they want, and let the schools’ reputations and the value of their degrees reflect which direction they go.

          • GM
            Posted May 26, 2017 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

            That’s one thing that has been puzzling me — why are the presidents of some of the most prestigious institutions in the world caving it to the demands of spoiled brats, which are a minority of the student population and which represent the part of the student the population that does not contribute much of value to the university (it is not a coincidence that often times these lists of demands include specific items about the need to reeducate the STEM students — that tells you that there are pretty much no STEM students among the SJWs).

            They can brush the whole thing off very easily and it is hard to see what consequences exactly they would suffer. A place like Yale or Harvard is so much bigger than a bunch of whiny brats, what exactly do they have to lose by expelling the worst offenders, calling campus security and putting and end to the circus?

            Their reputation might suffer a bit? So what? What are they going to lose from it? Their funding is tied to their research, and to donations from alumni; the former has no relevance to SJWism, some alumni might be SJWs and stop giving, but there are also many alumni who are shocked by what is going on and have stopped giving as a result.

            Perhaps the expansions of administration that is the inevitable consequences of caving in to such demands naturally appeals to the administration…

            • BJ
              Posted May 27, 2017 at 4:41 am | Permalink

              What can they do? Have you seen the violence they’ve started over a single speaker? They have scoail media, chat rooms, etc., will throw up the SJ symbol, get all their friends there, and possible destroy as much shit (and maybe even hurt as many people — looking at you Berkeley bike lock guy who turned out to be a professor at another college — as possible.

              But, pragmatically, even this will only happen a few times once they realize they’ve lost their power. It will be back to the drawing board. Back to new theories of power and activism. Back to uselessness.

              I ultimately blame the administrations for tolerating this crap, and for doing it for SO long.

              • GM
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 6:51 am | Permalink

                Have you seen the violence they’ve started over a single speaker?

                Have the police do its job properly while the university expels the crazies just once and there won’t be any more violence. It’s as simple as that.

                It’s a lot like with with refugee crisis in Europe — had there been machine guns on the border of, for example, Bulgaria, and had those been used even just once (as a sovereign country is not only fully in its rights to do but in fact has a duty to its citizens to protect the integrity of its borders), that would have put an end to the whole problem very quickly.

                Same thing here — if violence is occurring, the police has not only the right but a duty to stop it, and such violence constitutes a blatant violation of the university’s code of conduct clearly warranting expelling the responsible people.

                So have the police beat down the crazies and have the university expel them and the problem will be resolved very quickly.

                All it takes is some balls.

                P.S. As I said, the administrators have a conflicting set of incentives here, and this is why they’re tolerating it for now. On one hand, their authority is being undermined by what is happening. But on the other all of this lunacy is very helpful to them in their never ending fight for control over the university against the faculty. Who do trigger warnings and language policing hurt the most? The faculty, who are out there interacting with the students every day, not the administration. But who is going to police that? The administration. It is easy to see how such policies shift the balance of power even further towards the administration than it is now. And, of course, a common effect of students’ demands is the further ballooning of the administration, and if there was one thing all administrators love it is expansion of their bureaucracy.

              • BJ
                Posted May 27, 2017 at 7:04 am | Permalink

                Oh, I completely agree. But the administration is complicit in police non-action as well. I think it was Milo’s talk at UofC where there was violence *during* the talk, a student came up on stage and punched him in the face, the Chicago police were there, and when asked later why they didn’t try to control the crowd, one of them answered that the administration told them not to. The administrations of these schools are at the heart of the matter: starting and allowing courses about “toxic masculinity” and “aboloshing whiteness,” refusing to control or punish anyone who does any law or code of conduct-breaking in the name of “social justice,” etc. If they don’t open their eyes soon and act like the adults in the room they’re supposed to be, things will only get worse from here….

  4. dd
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    I am not an academic…but a difficult question:

    Do students in the types of organizations mentioned in this post tend to be among the better academic performers? Any correlations?

    • Travis
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      I suspect the correlation would be by program, not by grades. Grades may not be a good indicator when comparing different programs, anyway.

      I expect this to mostly be made up of students NOT in the sciences.

      • Xuuths
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        Students in the sciences are too busy studying and doing homework to do much political activism. Your mileage may vary.

      • BJ
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        Not only that, but how many times have we seen these regressives say they should be able to skip classes/put off or not take tests/even get paid for their time for doing their “activist work” because it’s so “mentally traumatizing”?

        I can provide links if people don’t believe they’ve said these things.

  5. Robert Bray
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    ‘. . . And while students are welcome to give input into the curriculum, it’s presumptuous to think that they should dictate their curriculum.’

    When I came to the University of Chicago in the fall of 1966, to begin graduate study in English, I did not even know what the curriculum would be. A year later, with PhD coursework looming, I did: and it was inadequate to what I and many of my compeers thought a PhD in English should learn and know in preparation for a college teaching career. We pushed for new courses in African-American literature and American literature more generally. We also agitated for a greater student voice in curricular and other departmental business. We did not ‘dictate’ but did ‘demand’ in the old sense of the verb, to ask forcefully for something.

    This was not a pleasant time for me (and, again, many of my fellow graduate students). It came during a time of great campus unrest, including a protracted sit-in at the administration building, led by the Students for a Democratic Society. Those of us who urged curricular change (we called it reform) we usually lumped with the SDS and other far-left student political groups, whether we were really allied with such or not.

    Some faculty in English who were otherwise quite ‘liberal’ became reactionary when faced with pressure to change their curricula. One day I overheard a prominent professor say–as I believe I was meant to–’Bray’s finally found something he can do.’ I was the editor of the graduate English students’ newsletter, and glad to be such, but this sneering put-down almost led to my dropping out of school. I’m happy I didn’t, and I think that anyone left at Chicago who remembers me and has followed my career is probably happy I didn’t too.

    All this reminiscence is on behalf of a single conclusion: curricular change in the humanities and social ‘sciences’ WILL happen, along with its concomitant centrifugal flight from the intellectual control of the old center and the ‘balkanization’ (as PCCE puts it) of ‘isms and ‘studies’ curricula and meeting houses around campus.

    Although I was a graduate student, Chicago was also a wonderful continuation of my liberal arts education. I understand now that for a great academy to remain so it MUST–imperatively–demonstrate a powerful, mind-enduing center-of-gravity that keeps all aspects of its BA curriculum in orbit. Even a far orbit is acceptable, so long as the heat and light and nurture of the center continues to shine as far as the farthest.

    • Robert Bray
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      Paragraph three: ‘WERE usually lumped with. . . . ‘ Sorry!

    • ploubere
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      Since you are of the opinion that you know what should be taught better than your teachers, why did you bother going to college?

      • Robert Bray
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        I don’t see where I expressed such an opinion. In the late 1960s my fellow English graduate students (I’d already ‘been to college,’ of course) wanted something MORE in our curriculum, not to jettison what was already there. Moreover, we wanted the professors to at least gesture toward teaching us how to teach (Chicago did not allow PhD candidates to be teaching assistants, believe it or not, so we were supposed to get a professorship and ‘just teach,’ simply on the laurels of having a degree from Chicago). Most of us were told we would become research professors at large universities; most of us didn’t, gaining if we were lucky positions at undergraduate teaching institutions–in my case a liberal arts college, for which I soon became most grateful, as one Chicago English PhD after another failed to get tenure during the great ‘job crisis’ of the 1970s and left the profession.

        By the way, Ploubere, your question was rather snarky.

  6. Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Whatever happened to the ideas espoused in the Declaration of the Rights of Man (any of them)? Those were supposed to apply to all men, who were considered equal. This “balkanization”, as Jerry rightly calls it, is throwing all that out the door. No more notion of “man”, just individual and isolated groups. Is this some sort of “divide and conquer”?

  7. Tom
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Just more pompous drivel from kiddies with too much time on their hands.
    I wonder if they should consider using Verwoerds’ SA as a model.
    Come to think of it didn’t he go to Oxford University and gain a degree in something or other?
    He also believed in carving out a safe place (for whites) in SA.
    This is really exciting I may be onto something here.

    • nicky
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      Yes, are these children (well yes, they sound like, look like, behave like…) realising what they are doing? Installing some kind of Apartheid*? I think not.
      They are promoting the ‘us versus them’ ideas, and that never ends well.

      *[of course, Apartheid was indeed different, a relic of colonialism and ensuring the dominance of the dominant class (based on race, nogal), but on other levels it suspiciously sounds and looks like it.]

  8. Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Have you been following the Bret Weinstein kerfuffle at Evergreen State College? It’s yet another mob call for a professor to be sacked, this time for the white supremacist crime of not removing his ass from campus when told to do so.

    • Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Wow. That is astonishing. Scary. There seems even to be some felonies there; threatening the students who agreed with the professor!

      This is truly alarming.

    • Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      Yes, I plan to do a post on that very soon. It’s scary.

    • BJ
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, I sent a link to him about that today. It’s absolutely frightening.

  9. eric
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    I very much like the committee’s emphasis on disruptive conduct as conduct that impacts other students’ ability to enjoy the facilities, events, etc… It really drives the point home on how one-sided the far left is being.

    As for the demands, I found this one particularly ironic/amusing:

    the document twice calls for “the creation of a pre-orientation program specifically for incoming students of color,” which would “familiarize students with campus resources and multicultural registered student organizations”

    So, they want to take all the students of color and isolate them into their own pre-orientation program, in order to tell them about the multicultural/diversity resources of the campus? Didn’t it occur to them that orientation and pre-orientation programs are a good place to start with that diversity?

  10. Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    If it wasn’t too soon since the last hoax and journals are on high alert I’d love to submit a paper arguing for the resegregation of drinking fountains.

    • Craw
      Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      I do not think this is a satire. It wants to end interracial marriage. That people feel comfortable blogging like this is telling I think. +

      • BJ
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

        Oh, I saw several prominent black blogger and tweeters lament Sarena Williams marrying that Reddit guy by saying things like, “we lost another one to them.” “I can’t believe she married a white guy.” “she’s a traitor.” “She has clearly internalized the racism of her society.” etc.

        • somer
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

          Typically communities are more concerned about women marrying someone from an “other” camp than men doing so

          • somer
            Posted May 27, 2017 at 12:01 am | Permalink

            Not to say the behaviour of most of the current crop of feminists isn’t completely stupid, nor that Hilary Clinton didn’t occasionally pander to this element in her election campaign

          • BJ
            Posted May 27, 2017 at 4:43 am | Permalink

            I’m not sure what that has to do with my comment, but the only places you might (I’ve never tried) see race-reversed comments is places like Stormfront, not from prominent, popular white bloggers.

      • fizziks
        Posted May 27, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

        Haha, from that article you linked:

        “And when you take into account that the majority of our brothers are locked up in prison, dead, or gay…”

        In addition to being innumerate and homophobic, what does that even mean?? It’s in the category of ‘not even wrong.’ How do you count the number of dead people and form a ratio with the living? Starting from when? The beginning of time? Then yes, the majority of people are dead.

        • BJ
          Posted May 28, 2017 at 4:11 am | Permalink

          My (metaphorical) god, i just realized the vast majority of my race is dead!


  11. Christopher
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!”
    -The Regressive Left

    What, you thought that was a racist quote by former Alabama governor George Wallace? Nope! We are seeing real-time proof that one can swing so far to the left that they end up on the right.

    Welcome to the new Dark Ages.

  12. Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    I have a hard time getting past the “I/We demand” to consider the rationale of the request.

  13. Christopher
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    And continuing in the same bigoted Leftist vein, I just read a report on the BBC site about the theater chain, The Alamo Draft House, in Austin Texas is having Women Only showings of Wonder Woman.

    • Posted May 26, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      What is really wrong with that? It’s a marketing ploy, not social commentary.

      • Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

        Given how shit the DC movies have been of late I suppose they need any gimmick they can.

        And if audiences conclude this is even worse than Batman vs Superman or Suicide Squad they can cry mysogyny.

        • Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

          Yep. I see this like SJWs see micro-aggressions. They should be micro-offended. Same here.

      • Christopher
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        They having to screen the guests, so no non-women sneak in and pollute the showing with their testosterone. Even the theater staff has to be female. Maybe they should have made a man-free movie altogether; no male actors, director, editors, etc. then they could market it to those with allergies as nut-free.

        • Xuuths
          Posted May 26, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

          I see what you did there at the end…

      • Adam M.
        Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        Well, I think if there was a men-only showing of a movie, there’d be outcry about sexism, misogyny, etc. Plus, it’s likely illegal. I don’t mind if women want woman-only events, but men wouldn’t be allowed to have men-only events and it’s the double standard that bothers me.

        • Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

          Yeah I can see that, but see my comment above. Micro-androgyny should be met with micro-offense.

          I give this controversy one “meh” up.

        • Posted May 26, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

          There were, effectively, women only audiences of Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray.

          No need to ban men from the theatre, just make a film they don’t want to watch.

  14. Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Does UChicago have a mechanism by which students can help in the process to design and implement new curriculum? Both UBC and CMU had such (but not McGill) when I was at those respective places.

  15. DrBrydon
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    . . . use or threatened use of force . . . that substantially and directly bears up on the member’s functions within the University.

    I think the policy is overall very good, but I am not sure why any violence would be tolerated if it didn’t bear upon functions within the unversity. I think they could have ended the sentence after “force.”

    I remember back in the mid-80s when the Department of Geography at UC was downgraded to a committee. What always strikes me about these sorts of demands is the absolute disregard of actual school resources, and the disproportionate demand for their allocation. We’ll leave aside for the moment whether any of the things demanded (how rude) would be of educational benefit.

  16. Merilee
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 1:09 pm | Permalink


  17. BJ
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Good for UoC for doing this. If you’re seeing regressive leftism everywhere on your campus (one of the more conservative), imagine what it’s like across the country.

    he reason these students keep pulling this crap and becoming more and more emboldened is because they are never, ever punished (even though right-wing students doing the same things would be). It’s time for administrations to stand up and stop this madness.

  18. Posted May 26, 2017 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Your last bit there really resonated with me. Exactly right! By all means, students should be encouraged to make suggestions about how to run the institution that awards their baccalaureate degree, but until they earn that degree they don’t get to demand how to run the institution that awards it.
    I had students tell me how I should run my class and how i should determine grades. I experienced an uncharacteristic surge of wrathful anger when that happened.

  19. jrhs
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    I demand that students be given more homework as they seem to have too much free time.

  20. somer
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    All power to UChicago arm against these idiots – I do hope they stand firm against it – but this wildfire of craziness across university campuses in the 21st century is very worrying.

  21. Isaac
    Posted May 26, 2017 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure I understood correctly. The same people who don’t believe in the concept of race are advocating for “the creation of a University funded and run cultural houses, specifically a Black House, a Latinx House, and an Asian House.”? So, who’s suppose to belong to the Black House? Anyone who calls themselves black?

  22. Dale Franzwa
    Posted May 27, 2017 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    It’s amazing to me how short-timers (students) want to remake the university to fit their own presumptions. But, they’ll be gone in a few years only to be replaced by new groups with new presumptions about how things should be. Meanwhile, faculty, administrators, workers of all sorts and professions remain for years, even decades. You can’t cater to every demand that comes along.

  23. Samedi
    Posted May 27, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    What are some good, non-religious universities that don’t suffer from the RL pathology? I will soon have to start looking for my children and would be glad to find a good university or college that does not pander to the RL. Surely there are some out there with some backbone and that hold classical liberal values?

    • fizziks
      Posted May 27, 2017 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      In general, the RL plague seems for now to be most problematic at several types of institutions:

      – Ivies
      – Some of the University of California campuses
      – Some of the Cal State campuses
      – Liberal arts colleges in the Northeast, northern Midwest, and Pacific NW, and the Claremont Colleges

      so if you want to avoid the worst of the RL those are the most urgent places to avoid.

      There seems to be a relative lack (for now?) of these problems at:

      – Flagship state universities outside of California (e.g. U Texas, UVA, LSU, etc.)
      – Schools with a strong technical focus or tradition (e.g. Caltech, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc.)
      – Liberal arts colleges outside of the regions mentioned above (many good options)
      – Large public non-flagship state universities that are largely commuter (e.g. Wayne State University, University of Tulsa, etc.)

      So those are some good places to look. Of course it takes all kinds so you can never be completely isolated from RL, just like you can never be completely isolated from any other form of idiocy or offense, but some places are way better than others. Plus as you can see there seems to be an unfortunate problem in many cases where as the RL quotient goes down the obsession with football and partying quotient goes up.

    • BJ
      Posted May 27, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      Try using FIRE’s website, where they rank schools in terms of their free speech. Look for green ones, and read the attendant descriptions of their policies. It’s an excellent resource. You can search by school name, state, and free speech rating.

%d bloggers like this: