<p>I think the Kalven Report is worded broadly enough to allow shifts in interpretation to occur. I do think Zimmer’s reading of the Report regarding the divestment issue was much too extreme. The administration may be hypocritical, but the Report itself as a guide seems to be pretty reasonable. </p>
<p>To sum, your critique seems to be more at the current administration rather than the Report and its ethos. That’s fair. I don’t think there’s anything in the Report itself, however, that explicitly would ban the Obama Library. Actually, if the administration shifts its policy away from the discomfiting standard it set with the Sudan issue, I have no problem with that. I’d prefer hypocrisy and eventually getting the interpretation right rather than consistently being erroneous with the interpretation. Would you prefer consistency in wrongful interpretation over the hypocrisy that eventually leads to a more correct analysis?</p>