Download PDF“Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn . . . . [I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
—Excerpt from the Chicago Statement
What is the Chicago Statement?
The “
Chicago Statement” refers to the free speech policy statement produced by the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago. In July of 2014, University of Chicago President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs tasked the Committee with “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.” The Committee, which was chaired by esteemed University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone, released the
report in January of 2015.
This Statement is part of a long tradition of reports emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech at institutions of higher learning, including the American Association of University Professors’ famous 1915 “
Declaration of Principles” and 1940 “
Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” Yale University’s “
Woodward Report,” and the University of Chicago’s
Kalven Report.
FIRE quickly
endorsed the Chicago Statement because it embodies the principles that FIRE defends every day. The statement is also an important reflection of how the principles of free speech are essential to the core purpose of a university. Since its release, FIRE has been working with colleges and universities around the country to adopt their own version of the Chicago Statement, in order to combat censorship on campus and protect the free speech rights and academic freedom of students and professors.
Who has adopted the Statement?
Faculty bodies, administrations, and institutional governing boards have officially endorsed the Chicago Statement at
over fifty-five institutions including
Princeton University,
Purdue University, American University,
Columbia University,
Georgetown University, and the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, among others.
Why is adopting the Chicago Statement important?
When your school adopts the Chicago Statement, it shows that your institution values free expression for all students and faculty. Free speech rights benefit everyone on campus, and reaffirm the core purpose of a university – a place for free inquiry, debate, and discourse. Whether your goal is to campaign, protest, do research, or simply learn in an environment that promotes open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, the Chicago Statement will help hold your institution accountable for protecting the free expression rights of students and faculty.
My school maintains “yellow light” or “red light” speech codes. Can we still adopt the Chicago Statement?
Yes. In fact, adopting a version of the Chicago Statement often gives the impetus for speech code reform. Thus, the adoption of the Chicago Statement by non-administrative groups can be an important step toward securing student and faculty free speech rights and achieving FIRE’s highest, “green light” rating. When a faculty senate, university-wide committee, or student government endorses the Statement, it sends a strong message to university leadership that students and faculty want their speech to be fully protected.
My university earns a green light rating from FIRE. Do we still need to adopt the Chicago Statement?
The green light rating is given to colleges and universities whose policies nominally protect freedom of speech. Even if your school has received FIRE’s green light rating, it is still important to adopt the Chicago Statement. A free speech statement is a set of principles the university community aspires to achieve. Adopting the Chicago Statement describes how the university hopes to cultivate an atmosphere of expression and debate – an endeavor that is important even if university policy already nominally protects free speech.
How can I bring the Chicago Statement to my campus?
Here are several tips for ensuring that your university will be the next institution to stand in solidarity with the Chicago Statement’s principles:
Work to pass a student government resolution calling on the university to adopt its
own version of the Chicago Statement.
Reach out to faculty members and work with faculty governing bodies on campus.
Build a broad coalition of students and groups, particularly across the ideological spectrum, to support the Chicago Statement and raise awareness on campus.
Publish articles and op-eds in student newspapers and other outlets.
Host events on campus, such as debates, speakers, and panels to discuss the principles supported by the Chicago Statement.
Communicate and collaborate with members of your university’s administration.
Host a
petition drive, asking students to pledge their support for the Chicago Statement’s principles in a petition that will go to the administration.
FIRE’s Chicago Statement Resources
Model Freedom of Expression Resolution Based on the Chicago StatementTemplate Letter to Alma MaterWashington Post op-ed by FIRE’s Will Creeley and University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey StoneFIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff in The Huffington Post: “Every University in the Country Should Adopt the University of Chicago’s Academic Freedom Statement”
FIRE’s Newsdesk article “
Universities should endorse free expression now, avoid criticism later”
Pledge Your Support for the Chicago Statemen
t
Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014
by President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs “in light of recent events nationwide that
have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.” The Committee’s charge was to draft
a statement “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited
debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.”
The Committee has carefully reviewed the University’s history, examined events at other institutions,
and consulted a broad range of individuals both inside and outside the University. This statement
reflects the long-standing and distinctive values of the University of Chicago and affirms the importance
of maintaining and, indeed, celebrating those values for the future.
From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the
preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of the
University’s culture. In 1902, in his address marking the University’s decennial,
President William Rainey Harper declared that “the principle of complete freedom of
speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the
University of Chicago” and that “this principle can neither now nor at any future time be
called in question.”
Thirty years later, a student organization invited William Z. Foster, the Communist
Party’s candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest
from critics both on and off-campus. To those who condemned the University for
allowing the event, President Robert M. Hutchins responded that “our students . . .
should have the freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.” He insisted that the
“cure” for ideas we oppose “lies through open discussion rather than through
inhibition.” On a later occasion, Hutchins added that “free inquiry is indispensable to the
good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they
cease to be universities.”
In 1968, at another time of great turmoil in universities, President Edward H. Levi, in his
inaugural address, celebrated “those virtues which from the beginning and until now
have characterized our institution.” Central to the values of the University of Chicago,
Levi explained, is a profound commitment to “freedom of inquiry.” This freedom, he
proclaimed, “is our inheritance.”
More recently, President Hanna Holborn Gray observed that “education should not be
intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities
should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore
strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn
assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.”
The words of Harper, Hutchins, Levi, and Gray capture both the spirit and the promise
of the University of Chicago.Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University the community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that
freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University, the University of Chicago
fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the University community
“to discuss any problem that presents itself.”
Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and
quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to
shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even
deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all
members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a
climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as
a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those
ideas may be to some members of our community.
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course,
mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish.TheUniversity may
restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that
constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy
or confidentiality interests, orthat is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning
of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and
manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the
University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of
expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner
that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open
discussion of ideas.
In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or
even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or
wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for
the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves and to act on
those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously
contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the
University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and
responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.
As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression,
members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of
free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize
and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest
speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or
otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even
loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a
lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom
when others attempt to restrict it.
As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a deep commitment to free and open
inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s long-standing
commitment to this principle lies at the very core of our University’s greatness. That is
our inheritance, and it is our promise to the future.
Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law,
Chair
Marianne Bertrand, Chris P. Dialynas, Distinguished Service Professor of
Economics, Booth School of Business
Angela Olinto, Homer J. Livingston Professor, Department of Astronomy and
Astrophysics, Enrico Fermi Institute, and the College
Mark Siegler, Lindy Bergman Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine and
Surgery
David A. Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law
Kenneth.Warren, Fairfax M.Cone Distinguished Service Professor,
Department of English and the College
AmandaWoodward, Williams.Gray Professor, Department of Psychology
and the College
35 Universities Adopt 'The Chicago Statement' On Free Speech--1,606 To Go
