<p>Logicalidea:</p>
<p>I’m unclear on your points. The Kalven Report does indeed include notions of social responsibility. According to the Report, while free inquiry is highly prized, when paramount social values must be maintained, free inquiry can be tabled. </p>
<p>The issue with Zimmer is that he did not feel a genocide correlated to “paramount social values” that should override the goal of free inquiry. I disagree with this view. Many others disagree with this view. </p>
<p>The Kalven Report, to me, doesn’t seem out of touch with modern day notions of social responsibility and free inquiry. I’m not sure why the policy itself should be revised. Can you point to other university policies that function more smoothly? Can you point to specific sections of the Kalven Report that you feel are out of touch or extremist? The Report seems quite sensible to me, as long as it is interpreted reasonably. </p>
<p>Again, to me, your criticism is with the administration, and that’s fine. You seem to be calling for a significant change in the administration, which is also potentially merited, but the document itself seems flexible enough to maintain relevance. Revising the document to emphasize “corporate social responsibility” much more could encroach upon free inquiry too much. Put another way, if Columbia focused much more on social responsibility than free inquiry, controversial and bigoted Iranian president Ahmadinijad could not have spoken on campus. This would contravene, in my opinion, the role of a university.</p>