My first thought is that there few, if any, non-controverial topics worth researching. My second thought is that any good university should be able to able to fully delineate any even remotely reasonable positions on any controversial topic (and should do so) without claiming to support any of them.
And I once spent 3 semesters teaching at a Dominican-led and -run university, where my boss (it was too small to have a dept chair or dean, exactly) proudly called me "the only atheist, anarchist professor of public administration" she had ever heard of. She was wrong about me being an atheist. I'm more of an a-religionist or something.
I got along wonderfully there, and learned quite a lot in many areas.
I had a similar problem with my brother accusing me of being agnostic. I told him atheists say there is no God (or gods), agnostics wonder, and I'm areligious, I just don't care, and I only ponder the question when someone asks.
Do you have a source for the claim that the Kalven Committee Report was a response to SDS's agitating at Chicago over divestment from South Africa? The Kalven Committee Report doesn't mention SDS or South Africa, and I haven't seen either thing mentioned in connection with the report. UCCD (the University of Chicago Coalition for Divestment) didn't begin operations until 1985, and in general, most divestment-from-South-Africa activism arose later than 1967.
I know that SDS engaged in some anti-apartheid activism on university campuses in the 60s (U of Michigan, Michigan State), but I'm not aware that it did so at Chicago. There's no mention of Chicago in Robert Kinloch Massie's history of the divestment movement, either (cf. Robert Kinloch Massie, Loosing the Bonds: The United States and South Africa in the Apartheid Years; Chapter 5 covers 1966-1970).
The University of Chicago’s investment decision won’t affect South Africa, but if other universities follow suit, and they are followed in turn by pension funds and other institutional investors, it could affect the availability of capital. At some point, it does matter.
Also, on an orthogonal note, at one time I had money in a mutual fund that invested in alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
Even if they were biased in different directions, there would be a problem if the faculty of a university saw maintaining its bias as an important objective, hence an argument against hiring people who did not share it. Intellectual diversity is valuable within a university as well as between universities.
Universities operate in such a tangled legal and financial web, one almost has to invoke the second best [ugh] to evaluate improvements. If only ... is easier.
If only non-profits had to pay taxes, could be forced into bankruptcy, the accreditation cartels to qualify for government cash were abolished, and student loans were issued on commercial terms, universities could do what they pleased, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aside. Competition, not regulation, would guarantee the truth seeking possibility of universities.
As for David's personal experiences with the Jesuits, I hope it's not apocryphal to say [This is probably a garbled version of something Paul Feyerabend wrote] that it's good to remember how well the Inquisition treated Galileo! Apparently, the head inquisitor, after listening to Galileo explain his findings, asked: Are you suggesting a simplified calculating device, or are you claiming this is God's truth? Galileo gave the wrong answer, but was only punished by house arrest. :-)
My first thought is that there few, if any, non-controverial topics worth researching. My second thought is that any good university should be able to able to fully delineate any even remotely reasonable positions on any controversial topic (and should do so) without claiming to support any of them.
And I once spent 3 semesters teaching at a Dominican-led and -run university, where my boss (it was too small to have a dept chair or dean, exactly) proudly called me "the only atheist, anarchist professor of public administration" she had ever heard of. She was wrong about me being an atheist. I'm more of an a-religionist or something.
I got along wonderfully there, and learned quite a lot in many areas.
I had a similar problem with my brother accusing me of being agnostic. I told him atheists say there is no God (or gods), agnostics wonder, and I'm areligious, I just don't care, and I only ponder the question when someone asks.
Do you have a source for the claim that the Kalven Committee Report was a response to SDS's agitating at Chicago over divestment from South Africa? The Kalven Committee Report doesn't mention SDS or South Africa, and I haven't seen either thing mentioned in connection with the report. UCCD (the University of Chicago Coalition for Divestment) didn't begin operations until 1985, and in general, most divestment-from-South-Africa activism arose later than 1967.
I know that SDS engaged in some anti-apartheid activism on university campuses in the 60s (U of Michigan, Michigan State), but I'm not aware that it did so at Chicago. There's no mention of Chicago in Robert Kinloch Massie's history of the divestment movement, either (cf. Robert Kinloch Massie, Loosing the Bonds: The United States and South Africa in the Apartheid Years; Chapter 5 covers 1966-1970).
https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antiapartheid/exhibits/show/exhibit/origins/campus-before-soweto
The University of Chicago’s investment decision won’t affect South Africa, but if other universities follow suit, and they are followed in turn by pension funds and other institutional investors, it could affect the availability of capital. At some point, it does matter.
Also, on an orthogonal note, at one time I had money in a mutual fund that invested in alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
Thinking about it. Our problem is not that our universities are politically biased, it's that nearly all of them are biased in the same direction.
Even if they were biased in different directions, there would be a problem if the faculty of a university saw maintaining its bias as an important objective, hence an argument against hiring people who did not share it. Intellectual diversity is valuable within a university as well as between universities.
I'm surprised you didn't go off on how unsustainable statist economic policies are.
Universities operate in such a tangled legal and financial web, one almost has to invoke the second best [ugh] to evaluate improvements. If only ... is easier.
If only non-profits had to pay taxes, could be forced into bankruptcy, the accreditation cartels to qualify for government cash were abolished, and student loans were issued on commercial terms, universities could do what they pleased, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aside. Competition, not regulation, would guarantee the truth seeking possibility of universities.
As for David's personal experiences with the Jesuits, I hope it's not apocryphal to say [This is probably a garbled version of something Paul Feyerabend wrote] that it's good to remember how well the Inquisition treated Galileo! Apparently, the head inquisitor, after listening to Galileo explain his findings, asked: Are you suggesting a simplified calculating device, or are you claiming this is God's truth? Galileo gave the wrong answer, but was only punished by house arrest. :-)