I think of this as the “more than one way to commit suicide” argument. In the context of constitutional theory, this is a debate about whether leaders should abandon/sacrifice/violate fundamental principles to save the polity vs. whether they themselves actually destroy the polity when they abandon its fundamental principles. Mercifully, it’s a dispute that generally only arises in crises. And U of C isn’t facing one. Personally, I think U of C is actually in a position where strengthening its distinctive culture is the most realistic way of maintaining/improving its “global brand.” So it’s not an either-or-proposition, much less a dilemma.
There is a vital place (in the US as well as globally) for an institution that believes that being smart, relentlessly curious, broadly educated, and hard-working is the key to making a positive impact on the world. The “being rich and well-connected is the key to fame/power/success” POV is already over-represented in elite American universities.