IMO, less wiggle room should have been given, although that might have happened off-camera. The Black Studies thing is a red herring at this point, because the BLM statement itself is a “formal institutional position on a public issue not directly related to the core functioning of the university” (to use Zimmer/Kalven terminology). Zimmer didn’t address the statement, he merely addressed the Black Studies decision. That decision was removed to the safety of the English Department admissions page, where it now resides as a “scholarly direction” rather than a “political test.” While it still might be open to various interpretations, the English Department can say what they’ve been stating for the past couple weeks now: they will admit different academic cohorts later on, no one is restricted merely to Black Studies, and so forth. But none of that matters. Even had there been no Black Studies restriction at all - ie the department was refreshingly devoid of establishing admission criteria for this coming year - the BLM statement itself is in conflict with both the Kalven Report and the Chicago Principles. Zimmer’s explanation of Kalven really clarifies that, and Dershowitz (see comment #58) provides several examples as to how so. Has this fact been pointed out to English during more private conversations? No fly on the wall, but I envision a grudging compromise worked out where the department head moves the Black Studies thing off the home page but keeps the rest of the statement as is, and then Zimmer declines to condemn the department outright but adds that even the implication of a political test is wrong . . .