Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Campus Policy: Censorship and Lies at the UofC as well?
Joshua Elder on Affirmative-Action Bake Sales on National Review Online
The University of Chicago should have an affirmative action bake sale. I'll look into this at the next College Republican meeting and see what I can do. I'm interested in finding out whether or not the very vague policy that the UofC has towards speech would come into play. In the Studen Handbook, the following policy is outlined:
This doesn't seem like it would apply to an affirmative action bake sale; however, the clause that discusses violence could be twisted to shut such an event down if threats of violence and/or violence occured at a bake sale, even if such violence was not the fault of the event organizers.
During Orientation Week for first-years at the beginning of fall quarter last year, and presumably this year (although I'm not entirely sure), several sessions were devoted to a presentation and discussion revolving around the above policy. The presentation that was made was a "mock trial" in which two law students made arguments for and against allowing a white (what other race would you expect) hate-monger to come and speak at the University of Chicago about the religious organization he backed. The argument was whether or not he should be allowed to come and speak, even though the nature of his speech would not be hate, because of what he had said in the past.
The students participating in Orientation Week (including myself in fall 2002) discussed the presentation in a small session with other first-years and older orientation leaders who are more advanced in the college. At the end of the discussion ballots were cast and the results tallied (strangely I can't remember what the result was).
From this presentation it seems to me that The University would allow such a bake sale; what's interesting, though, is how such a stereotypical speaker was used as the straw man in this exericise. What's also intersting is how a vote was held--does this reflect that the University is willing to submit to a plebiscite and bow down to any group that is willing to make a lot of noise, even if they are promoting censorship? I suppose we shall see if a bake sale is held.
Turning to thet problem of affirmative action that Mr. Reynolds discusses, what's really great is the statement of diversity:
So, students will be considered on the basis of individual merit without regard to race, color, and national or ethnic origin. I always wonder what's left for determining "diversity". Obviously the ideas of indivudual students. But, isnt' race used as a method of determining "diversity"? Isn't such a method by defenition "racist"?
I'd love to get on the inside of admissions policy here once and see if they're as hypocritical as other universities, as "meely-mouthed" as Glen Reynolds puts it.
The University of Chicago should have an affirmative action bake sale. I'll look into this at the next College Republican meeting and see what I can do. I'm interested in finding out whether or not the very vague policy that the UofC has towards speech would come into play. In the Studen Handbook, the following policy is outlined:
At the University of Chicago, freedom of expression is vital to our shared goal of the pursuit of knowledge, as is the right of all members of the community to explore new ideas and learn from one another. To preserve an environment of spirited and open debate, we should all have the opportunity to contribute to intellectual exchanges and participate fully in the life of the University.
The ideas of different members of the University community will frequently conflict and we do not attempt to shield people from ideas that they may find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even offensive. Nor, as a general rule, does the University intervene to enforce social standards of civility. There are, however, some circumstances in which behavior so violates our community's standards that formal University intervention may be appropriate. Acts of violence, and explicit threats of violence directed at a particular individual that compromise that individual's safety or ability to function within the University setting are direct affronts to the University's values and warrant intervention by University officials. Abusive conduct directed at a particular individual that compromises that individual's ability to function within the University setting and/or that persists after the individual has asked that it stop may also warrant such intervention. Even if formal intervention is not appropriate in a particular situation, abusive or offensive behavior can nonetheless be inconsistent with the aspirations of the University community, and various forms of informal assistance and counseling are available.
This doesn't seem like it would apply to an affirmative action bake sale; however, the clause that discusses violence could be twisted to shut such an event down if threats of violence and/or violence occured at a bake sale, even if such violence was not the fault of the event organizers.
During Orientation Week for first-years at the beginning of fall quarter last year, and presumably this year (although I'm not entirely sure), several sessions were devoted to a presentation and discussion revolving around the above policy. The presentation that was made was a "mock trial" in which two law students made arguments for and against allowing a white (what other race would you expect) hate-monger to come and speak at the University of Chicago about the religious organization he backed. The argument was whether or not he should be allowed to come and speak, even though the nature of his speech would not be hate, because of what he had said in the past.
The students participating in Orientation Week (including myself in fall 2002) discussed the presentation in a small session with other first-years and older orientation leaders who are more advanced in the college. At the end of the discussion ballots were cast and the results tallied (strangely I can't remember what the result was).
From this presentation it seems to me that The University would allow such a bake sale; what's interesting, though, is how such a stereotypical speaker was used as the straw man in this exericise. What's also intersting is how a vote was held--does this reflect that the University is willing to submit to a plebiscite and bow down to any group that is willing to make a lot of noise, even if they are promoting censorship? I suppose we shall see if a bake sale is held.
Turning to thet problem of affirmative action that Mr. Reynolds discusses, what's really great is the statement of diversity:
In keeping with its long-standing traditions and policies, the University of Chicago, in admissions, employment and access to programs, considers students on the basis of individual merit and without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or other factors irrelevant to participation in the programs of the University.
So, students will be considered on the basis of individual merit without regard to race, color, and national or ethnic origin. I always wonder what's left for determining "diversity". Obviously the ideas of indivudual students. But, isnt' race used as a method of determining "diversity"? Isn't such a method by defenition "racist"?
I'd love to get on the inside of admissions policy here once and see if they're as hypocritical as other universities, as "meely-mouthed" as Glen Reynolds puts it.
Comments:
Post a Comment
