<p>By the way: There are already “wings” of the university where certain ideas are not, as you say, “allowed”. Just try to go to the folks in evolutionary biology and argue that “creation science” should be taught in their classes. Yes. You will say, but general scholarly views are not the issue, political views are. But you can find those too. Sexuality studies, for instance, would have a hard time with the idea that sodomy should be punishable by law. That’s a political view that excludes others. </p>
<p>And the Kalven Report, I think, contemplates that partisan political views will be held, studied, and even advocated by people at the University. Where it draws the line is for engagement in politics in general <em>by</em> the University as a collective. Again, the example of Stanford is instructive – because it has an institution that is affiliated (Hoover), that is dedicated to the legacy and ideals of a president (Hoover), and pursues those aims consistently. And yet, it is pretty clear that Stanford itself is not espousing those aims as an entire collective body. </p>
<p>You can argue that Stanford has a different academic culture. And I agree. But it is not Stanford’s culture that is at issue, it is merely whether the institutional arrangement that exists there poses the kind of problem you think an Obama library or initiative headed by Obama would pose at the U of C. I think Stanford presents pretty good evidence that it would not. </p>
<p>I’m not saying – to be very clear – that presidential library or initiative could <em>never</em> be created that would violate the Kalven Report’s principles. Just that there is a good reason to believe that such a beast doesn’t have to.</p>