<p>logicalidea - I guess I’m not reading the Kalven Report as a series of “rules.” To me, they read like general guiding principles. Further, just like any guiding principles, they can be interpreted and applied dutifully or erroneously. I don’t believe, however, that the possibility of misapplication totally removes the value of such a broad “mission statement.” Like any other set of broad principles, we can only hope that those who lead interpret responsibly. </p>
<p>I’m not sure what a revision of such a broad policy would do. The basic principle for UChicago - like for most universities - is to encourage a free flow of ideas. The Kalven Report just expounds on this principle for a couple pages. </p>
<p>Again, maybe I’m missing something about the Report itself, but I’ve read it a few times now and it doesn’t seem to nail down the university with any particular rigidity. Like many guides, its up to those in charge to interpret it dutifully. I don’t see the university being “stuck with the rules it set up” because the Report is such a broad document. I agree this administration should be scrutinized, but I don’t think the Report itself is the issue.</p>
<p>Again, the critique of the administration is fair, and they may be interpreting the Report hypocritically over time. The Report itself, though, again, doesn’t seem to be the issue.</p>