The Chicago Trifecta
Essay on three of the University of Chicago's most important policies, which guarantees free expression, merit based hiring practices, and institutional neutrality on social and political issues.
By Dorian Abbot for Heterodox STEM
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to discuss practical solutions to the threat to free inquiry at universities coming from the illiberal, identitarian left. Based on my experiences at the University of Chicago, I propose that all universities should adopt and enforce rules requiring that: (1) the university, and any unit of it, cannot take collective positions on social and political issues (2) faculty hiring and promotion be done solely on the basis of research and teaching merit, with nothing else taken into consideration and (3) free expression is guaranteed on campus, even if someone claims to be offended, hurt, or harmed by it. Faculty need to work together with students, alumni, journalists, and politicians to get this done.
Introduction
The threat to free inquiry and scientific progress at universities coming from the illiberal, identitarian contingent of the left is well-established (e.g., Krylov 2021) and will be taken as given here. The purpose of this essay is to discuss practical solutions to the problem. The proposed solutions will be liberal, rather than reactionary or rightwing. They are based on historical experiences at the University of Chicago as well as my own personal experience. Getting the solutions adopted will require working with alumni, journalists, and politicians. A key element of the plan will be finding ways to ensure enforcement.
Let’s start by considering a few practical examples. Illiberal, identitarian leftwing authoritarians (sometimes called “Woke”) are now requiring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statements as part of faculty application and promotion packages at many universities. These statements are ideological purity tests that eliminate scholars who disagree with identity politics. Since the statements are required to obtain a position or promotion, they are a form of compelled speech. A rightwing response might be to instead require rightwing ideological purity tests for faculty hiring and promotion. For example, applicants might have to write statements in support of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism that explain how they would implement it on campus. Instead, I will discuss a solution embedded in the liberal tradition: ban irrelevant ideological purity statements and hire faculty based on their academic merit. As another example, leftwing authoritarians are using DEI to enforce de facto quota systems for faculty and students on the basis of race, sex, and sometimes other irrelevant characteristics such as sexual behavior. A rightwing response might be to set up quota systems to favor conservatives or Christians. Instead, I prefer a centrist, liberal solution: simply admit students and hire faculty on the basis of objective measures of academic merit without reference to irrelevant characteristics.
The solutions I will discuss are based on three reports from the University of Chicago: the Kalven report (Kalven et al. 1967), the Shils report (Shils et al. 1972), and the Chicago Principles (Stone et al. 2014). The Kalven reportprevents the University, and any unit of it, from taking a collective position on social and political issues. The Shils report requires that faculty hiring and promotion be done solely on the basis of research and teaching merit, with nothing else taken into consideration. The Chicago Principles ensure free expression on campus, even if someone claims to be offended, hurt, or harmed by it. Together, these three reports are sometimes referred to as the “Chicago Trifecta” (Abbot et al. 2022). These reports should be officially adopted and strictly enforced at every university.