The principles of the Chicago Statement and the Kalven Report are quite likely to be submitted to robust criticism in years to come. At what time was anything at this school left uncritiqued? At what time were there not dissenters? Yet these principles are in the nature of constitutional documents at this University, and constitutions are not re-examined lightly or simply at the urging of a handful of dissenters.
Dissent is in the DNA of the place, and there is definitely opposition to free speech principles within the faculty. Entire departments have gone rogue on the subject. Check out the English Department’s public statement of its mission and why it is now closed for business to white applicants. (Naturally, there is a long cc thread on this.) Those dissenters have not been shut down. The English Department has been allowed to keep its statement and its policy. Individual profs and particular groups within the University are free to promote safe spaces. That’s how it rolls in a pluralistic institution.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a group of six hardline profs (including, of course, one from the English Department) were seeking to force the issue of re-examination of the free speech policy. That will doubtless happen at some point when there is a general dispostion in all the constitutent parts of the University to do it. In the meantime the dissident profs are free to canvass, discuss, and agitate as they see fit. As Geoffry Stone suggests, they could, if they wish, devise a public lecture or other forum to make their case. That’s what freedom of discussion looks like. Those profs were likely weaned in the era of participatory democracy: they equate free speech with acceptance of their demands. That’s a category mistake packaged as a disingenuous debating point. A finer reading of Aristotle would have cured the mistake.
Large public statements are important in the way that overarching statements of principle are always important - they give defintion to the ideals of an institution. They do not impose a regime of strict enforcement, and they leave open many vexed and granular decisions for consideration as they arise. At some point soon, however, some campus organization will invite a controversial speaker and another organization will announce its intention of disrupting that talk. That will be the moment we find out whether the Chicago Statement is a marketing ploy or a real thing. The general discussion this will generate on campus will likely be more important than anything said by the speaker. l have no doubt that there will be robustness aplenty and no place will be safe from it.