The University of Chicago’s Hypocrisy on Free Speech

Kevin MacDonald


chicago-half-page-01

 

We at TOO are cooperating with a new ad agency, Free Press Promotions, to attempt to get ads for TOO and TOQ into college newspapers. We thought the University of Chicago would be a good place to start given that they have loudly proclaimed themselves opposed to safe spaces and trigger warnings. Two possible ads were submitted (shown above and below here), and both were rejected by the newspaper with the simple statement, “unfortunately, our editors did not approve them.” Free Press Promotions emailed the president and the dean to get their reactions, but so far no response.

chicago-half-page-02


Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Robert Zimmer is the president of this non-profit university (which is quite profitable for Zimmer; he makes nearly $3.4 million/year). Zimmer is so proud of his commitment to free speech that he waxed eloquent on the topic in the Wall Street Journal (“Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education“; Aug. 26, 2016):

Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university.

Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons. Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable. Individuals are forced to apologize for expressing views that conflict with prevailing perceptions. In many cases, these efforts have been supported by university administrators.

Yet what is the value of a university education without encountering, reflecting on and debating ideas that differ from the ones that students brought with them to college? The purpose of a university education is to provide the critical pathway by which students can fulfill their potential, change the trajectory of their families, and build healthier and more inclusive societies. … One word summarizes the process by which universities impart these skills: questioning.

Questioning is great, as long as questioning results in inclusiveness. One has the feeling that not everything is on the table.

Essential to this process is an environment that promotes free expression and the open exchange of ideas, ensuring that difficult questions are asked and that diverse and challenging perspectives are considered. This underscores the importance of diversity among students, faculty and visitors—diversity of background, belief and experience. Without this, students’ experience becomes a weak imitation of a true education, and the value of that education is seriously diminished.

Free expression and the unfettered exchange of ideas do not always come naturally. Many people value the right to express their own ideas but are less committed to granting that right to others. …

We have seen efforts to suppress discussion of Charles Darwin’s work, to insist upon particular political perspectives during the McCarthy era, to impose exclusionary acts of racial and religious discrimination, and to demand compliance with various forms of “moral” behavior. The silencing being advocated today is equally as problematic. Every attempt to legitimize silencing creates justification for others to restrain speech that they do not like in the future.

Since much of the material published in TOO and TOQ is firmly grounded in Darwinism and evolutionary psychology and since many of our writers have academic backgrounds, one would think that the university would be very open to the views expressed in TOO and TOQ.

Moreover, regarding the McCarthy era, that was when the left was on the defensive and were strong advocates for free speech. But now that the left is in charge, they are leaders in squelching speech they don’t like.

So I am inclined to think that Zimmer’s virtue signaling on free speech is a sham. Despite all the high-flown phrases, his university is just another institution defending the hegemony of the left in academia. And  Zimmer is just another well-paid soldier in service of our corrupt establishment. The anti-White revolution is indeed massively incentivized.

I suggest letting Pres. Zimmer know how you feel about this. His email is: president@uchicago.eduPlease be civil and reasonably polite.

 

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

19 Comments to "The University of Chicago’s Hypocrisy on Free Speech"

  1. D. Goldberg's Gravatar D. Goldberg
    September 29, 2016 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

    To be honest, these free speech defenses are made to defend professors:

    Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons. Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable.

    Basically it is about the SJW students who attack already liberal teachers for presenting something triggering to them.

  2. Ed's Gravatar Ed
    September 29, 2016 - 6:39 am | Permalink

    Here is a great example of corruption that destroys. Robert Zimmer has clearly and accurately defined what the problem is, but then refuses to take action/acknowledge the very solutions that he (Zimmer) proposes. Not much different than Obama and the Globalists admitting that the problem with Globalism is that the 1% make all the money, then doing nothing about it.

    Looks like we will have to get the students to bring the topics into the classroom, and use Zimmer’s article as justification.

  3. Eric Kunnap's Gravatar Eric Kunnap
    September 27, 2016 - 8:45 am | Permalink

    So then perhaps President Zimmer should “disavow” the Chicago Maroon paper altogether, just as the liberal mainstream media forced Trump to disavow Dr. David Duke’s comments of support for his campaign (where there was absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Trump/Duke)!

  4. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    September 26, 2016 - 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Zimmer says that free speech is the basis of a true education.

    I googled “University of Chicago” and found they have departments like these:

    – Biological Sciences Division
    – Chicago Booth School of Business
    – Law School
    – Institute for Molecular Engineering

    I wonder what makes some people think that free speech is the basis of studying biology and business. It would be great if universities fought to protect free speech instead of stifling it, but that is not their real mission.

    The most important restriction to free speech today is that White people are not allowed to defend their existence, and are not allowed to denounce Jewish efforts to destroy White society. That is to say, the two most crucial questions are off limits. Zimmer doesn’t want to hear about it either.

    Since those two questions have crucial implications in every field of politics, it means there isn’t free speech in any of those fields.

    But it doesn’t feel to me as a matter of free speech. What needs to be defended is our collective existence. It is much more than free speech. It’s not okay to defend free speech while abetting or tolerating the destruction of White people. Besides, Zimmer doesn’t even defend free speech.

    He says that McCarthy tried to “insist upon particular political perspectives”. There is nothing wrong with that. And there would be nothing wrong with people like McCarthy shutting up the Jews who try to destroy White society. White lives matter more than Jewish free speech. In the meantime, Zimmer is the one helping ZOG to shut up the goyim while posing as a champion of free speech.

    Zimmer: “Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable (…) In many cases, these efforts have been supported by university administrators.”

    The complaint that students are made uncomfortable is just a pretext used by the university to shut White people up and prevent them from defending themselves. What’s wrong with that is not that it harms free speech, but that it helps destroy White people.

  5. September 26, 2016 - 3:37 pm | Permalink

    This is an excellent tactic. When the college newspapers reject the ads, you simply set up a website where that fact is documented. You can hijack traffic to these college newspapers and have their censorship on the record.

    Do this enough times and the pattern of the rejections becomes obvious – these college newspapers are anti-White/Europhobic.

    Make sure to compare and contrast the ads that do get run in these newspapers.

    My observation is that there are two ethnic groups that are discriminated against and subjected to denials of their existence: European/European-Americans, and Palestinians.

    “Whiteness is a social construct.”

    “Palestinians are an invented people.”

    These are the only two groups subjected to this form of attack

    • J's Gravatar J
      September 30, 2016 - 12:05 am | Permalink

      Palestinians did not exist before (British) colonialism, they were invented (exactly like Kenyans, Ugandans, etc.). But now they are real and multiplying fast. Israel is negotiating with their elected representatives for co-existence. Who in 2016 is denying their existence?

  6. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 26, 2016 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    “…Essential to this process is an environment that promotes free expression and the open exchange of ideas, ensuring that difficult questions are asked and that diverse and challenging perspectives are considered. This underscores the importance of diversity among students, faculty and visitors—diversity of background, belief and experience…”

    There you have it : diversity. Free speech is only for “diverse” (= Cultural Marxist) perspectives, and only for students of a “diverse” (= non-White) background. White students with traditional perspectives need not apply. Otherwise that would be giving “hate” a podium. What a privilege to be in the possession of the absolute truth and absolute goodness and being able to spread that in the world. Isn’t that worth a salary of $ 3,4 million a year?

  7. Ballast's Gravatar Ballast
    September 26, 2016 - 1:01 pm | Permalink

    ‘Please be civil and reasonably polite.”
    Well that rules me out.
    Best of luck with your new ad campaign. This is a truly unique website that should be a household name.

    • A.Yell's Gravatar A.Yell
      September 27, 2016 - 8:36 am | Permalink

      [Mod. Note: Be aware that the comment streams at TOO are not a “free” speech forum. The header of this site and the Mission Statement define the purpose of articles and comments. Any commenter behavior inimical or damaging to these purposes will find that their comment won’t see the light of day.

      – Commenters aren’t “free” to abuse this site by making it a forum for petty squabbles, religious wars or similar.

      – Commenters aren’t “free” to make the comment streams a dumping ground for a link-fest of their personal interests.

      – Commenters aren’t “free” to bend the comments “off-topic” to suit their interests. The “topic” of any stream of comments must be the article it is attached to.

      – Commenters aren’t “free” to turn TOO comment streams into the banter commonly seen in internet “chats”. like Chatango. Substantial and on-topic comments will be posted. “One-liners” of agreement, and hostile comments directed at another commenter will not.

      – Commenters aren’t “free” to work out their frustrations by creating “drama” in the comments. Yes, this has been allowed in the past. That’s over now.

      This list could get very long, but the more intelligent among commenters of good-will will “get it” without further explanation.]

  8. September 26, 2016 - 10:20 am | Permalink

    Here’s my message to Zimmer (Subject: Refusal to publish OO advert)

    “Dear President, so much for your commitment to free speech at the ‘non-profit’ university from which you trouser nearly $4 million annually.You’re in a position to do this due to the work and sacrifice of the White Americans who built the institution, an institution which (((your people))) have taken over and now use against their descendants.

    Be aware that the number of Whites waking up to (((your))) machinations is growing exponentially and hopefully will soon reach critical mass. Once again you people have over-played your hand.”

    • FranksandBeans's Gravatar FranksandBeans
      September 29, 2016 - 9:56 pm | Permalink

      Good answer. I like how you pointed out the fact that it was White Americans that built the Institute and that the Jews have just hijacked it and now using it to destroy White America. The same letter should also be sent to Harvard. That college is not following the ideals of their founders.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        September 30, 2016 - 10:22 am | Permalink

        That college is not following the ideals of their founders.

        And you, FranksandBeans, seem likewise not to be following the ideals of TOO!

        My reason for writing the above is this: On the now closed thread for the “Duke Campaign” article, you wrote the following:

        Pierre, I asked you a question about the comments being closed after the article is a few days old and also about what is criteria the comments should have to get posted. I would appreciate an answer instead of you just ignoring. Treat your readers with some respect.

        I have two questions in reply.

        (1) As there is no record anywhere of your ever having asked me a question in an open thread, what were you talking so rudely to me about?

        (2) Why did you assume and declare, entirely without rational basis, that I would have any input into why “comments [are] closed after [an] article is a few days old” and into “what … criteria the comments should have to get posted”?

  9. September 26, 2016 - 10:03 am | Permalink

    Of course Zimmer’s commitment to free speech is a sham. (((They))) can sense an unnerving shift in understanding among the goyim and whom they feel need reassuring.

  10. Halford Mackinder's Gravatar Halford Mackinder
    September 26, 2016 - 5:49 am | Permalink

    Would Dr. MacDonald give permission for people to use these as stand-alone fliers? One of the activities that I am involved in is handing out AltRight business cards and fliers and these ads would make good hand-bills.

  11. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    September 26, 2016 - 4:36 am | Permalink

    It’s time to “out” those who are Europhobic!

  12. Eric Kunnap's Gravatar Eric Kunnap
    September 25, 2016 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Like they say, “the truth is hate to those who hate the truth”. But whether it was the rich content that academia wishes to shield from their young naive students or they are holding fast on excluding European-Americans from the current-year definition of our human “diversity”, one thing is clear: The cracks are widening in the falsehoods they profess, and the gut instincts of Americans will kick in deeper and deeper, eyes opening wider and wider. They have (and had) the opportunity to balance the playing field into a more fair dynamic, but if they refuse to budge and continue with their Sovietizing of America, then there will be change in the air. Obviously the “Fall of the Neo-Con Establishment” of the Republican Party has been our first sign of a movement.

  13. September 25, 2016 - 6:32 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s unfair of you to call out President Zimmer for this. I assume the “college newspaper” in question is the Chicago Maroon. It’s run by students and has long had, as can be seen from the content, a distinctly SJW perspective. Nothing about the University’s free speech policy constrains the Maroon editors. Indeed, the paper’s Memorandum of Understanding with the University stipulates both editorial and financial independence of the paper from the University (sections 3(A) and 7(A)). So call out the editors for rejecting the ad, if you wish, but I don’t think you should give headaches to the President, who seems at least to be trying to move the University in a free-speech direction.

  14. September 25, 2016 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    This is a carbon copy of a typical Kultur-Bolshevik legal and linguistic inversion; if a prose or a lecture by some scholar questions critically the veracity of self –proclaimed, “self-evident” truths (cf. the race question, the Jewish question, etc.), it immediately falls into the category of the bizarre and polymorphous verbal construct of “hate speech.” No more free speech. Reminds me much of the falsified meta-language of the academic commissars back in ex-communist Yugoslavia.

    • A.Yell's Gravatar A.Yell
      September 26, 2016 - 4:38 pm | Permalink

      As usual Dr. Tom is spot on!

Comments are closed.