Had the MIT peeps in charge just stated “look, we are afraid of our students disrupting things so we decided to cancel this speaker instead because that’s easier” - that would have at least been honest (had that been their actual reason). Wimpy, but honest. Instead, they went on to make up a whole lot of nonsense about how academic freedom doesn’t apply in this case, and how the “character” of the speaker counts. Apparently MIT doesn’t consider public lectures by renown climate scientists as an “academic topic” and gender/racial politics is more important than climate science (or maybe, only those espousing certain political thoughts are allowed to speak on campus about climate science; can’t think of a better way to discredit the topic! Come to think of it, can’t think of a better way to discredit the reputation of MIT).
But back to discussing UChicago: This public lecture is an example of the types of connections that great universities can make with their surrounding community. It makes me wonder how Alivisatos would respond had the lectureship been one of his projects and Abbott had been from MIT. Let’s say, further, that members of the university and surrounding community oppose this professor’s viewpoints because they see them as racist and/or sexist. Finally, let’s assume that there is a genuine chance of students attempting to shut down the lecture. How would Alivisatos respond, since a few of his objectives would seem to be at odds with one another? We already know how the university under Zimmerman responded to the petitions to get Abbott removed from advising and teaching in the graduate program: it was a great big “Nope.” But that was then and this is now, with new objectives and an expansive mission to make nice with the surrounding communities and divisions within the university. So what would happen this time?