Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To:
Robert Zimmer, President
Daniel Diermeier, Provost
The University of Chicago
The faculty letter already circulating has spoken at great length about the University’s
commitment to freedom of expression, a value with which we certainly agree and whose
arguments we do not wish to rehash. We agree with our faculty when they say that the
combination of academic excellence and open inquiry at the University require "an
environment where every member of our community is valued and hate speech that is
meant to undermine their full participation is not tolerated." We would not have gone to
the University of Chicago had we not sought out a richly rewarding educational
experience with groups of diverse people of different ideologies and mindsets. However,
amplifying Bannon’s hate speech does not align with these principles, and making space
for Bannon necessarily drives out space and resources for other perspectives. We concur
with our faculty’s assessment that condoning a visit from Bannon compromises that
mission in and of itself. We do not question Bannon’s right to speak. We gravely
question the University’s decision to give him a platform to do so.
We understand that the University may feel bound by theoretical principles and guiding
documents. As alumni, we are committed to those principles, documents, and the
processes that led to their creation and periodic review. The 1967 Kalven Report says,
“[from] time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten
the mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the
obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to
defend its interests and its values.” This sentiment is echoed in the 2015 Report of the
Committee on Free Expression, which states, “[the] University may restrict expression
that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine
threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality
interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the
University.” In such cases, the Committee on Free Expression concluded, “[to] this end,
the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless
freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt
to restrict it.” Stephen Bannon seeks to silence dissenting voices of large portions of
society. Denying him a platform to speak at our university does not restrict our
environment of fearless freedom of debate and deliberation; rather, it protects that
environment.
As alumni, we are extremely concerned that allowing Bannon to speak will harm both
students and the reputation of the university. There is no need to rehash the consequences
to our campus and South Side communities when we invite speakers who do not view
everyone in our midst as fully human citizens of the world. As alumni of our prestigious
institution, our primary responsibility to the University is to ensure that all current
students in our programs have the same or better access to the same high-quality,
valuable, safe, supportive, challenging, horizons-expanding learning environment that we
did.
As Bannon is an invited guest of the business school, let us think of Bannon’s presence
on campus in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. It surely benefits Bannon to have received
an invitation to speak at one of the most influential and academically prestigious
universities in the world. Whether or not his invitation is rescinded, whether or not his
debate is to an empty audience, an auditorium of shrill sycophants, or if he speaks to
angry protesters lining the halls -- Bannon has already reaped the benefits of this
invitation. No matter what happens, whether he speaks or not, whether his speech is
viewed positively or not, whether he says anything worthy of intellectual discussion or
not, Bannon has received benefits from this invitation from the University of Chicago at
the expense of the greater community.
On the other hand, we as a University community bear the costs of his visit and few
benefits at all. First are the possible direct financial costs of his visit: travel, food,
lodging, and honorarium. This is money directly allotted by the University from a finite
fund to pay for guests. Any money that is spent on Bannon cannot be spent on other
speakers. There will certainly also be increased security costs surrounding Bannon’s visit.
As alumni who are regularly asked to donate to the University for the benefit of its
current students, we strongly feel there are better ways for our donations to be put to use.
Next are the costs on the time of students, faculty, and administration as we react to this
news: the University of Chicago is fast becoming a focal point in the next wave of culture
wars. This cost will be disproportionately borne by students, faculty, and employees of
the University who belong to groups that Bannon has directly attacked, including but not
limited to people of color, our LGBTQ-identifying communities, our Jewish and Muslim
communities, and international students. A Bannon visit to campus will be a distraction
from, not an enhancement to, that learning environment which we all cherish. Students
seeking emotional support around the event will put strain on the university’s wellness
resources, including mental health, spiritual life, and housing staff. Many students who
live on-campus are members of groups that Bannon singles out for hate: even if they
choose not to attend Bannon's speech, none of them are free to avoid the chaos that will
accompany it.
Finally, there is the cost of association with Bannon itself. Hosting Bannon may hamper
the University of Chicago’s ability to recruit and retain a diverse student body, as well as
attracting faculty and speakers; we find allowing him to speak at odds with the
University’s commitment to diversity and programs such as the Odyssey Scholarship
Program, which help to make campus accessible to all promising scholars. Is the
University of Chicago community really so interested in the intellectual views of Stephen
Bannon that we will pay for the chance to associate with a man who harbors white
supremacist views, who is the proponent of the Muslim ban, who has been accused of
domestic violence and sexual harassment, who has used openly derogatory language
about members of the LGBTQ community, and who has openly sneered at universities
and every value we stand for?
Many have argued that Bannon has a right to speak his opinion. We do not in any way
dispute that he does. We have seen him put that right to use over and over, in many
outlets, including Breitbart News, the well-known racist media outlet which he ran until
earlier this month. One can quite easily find interviews with Steve Bannon with the New
York Times, 60 Minutes, Vanity Fair, and a variety of other outlets. The value added to
hearing Bannon speak “straight from the horse’s mouth”, as it were, is very limited, given
how cheaply he has already gotten media outlets to spread his views. His views are not
secrets that have been unable to find an outlet, but have been broadcast from the White
House Oval Office repeatedly over the last year. Meanwhile, due to Bannon’s well-
documented propensity for distorting and misrepresenting matters of fact, the veracity of
anything novel he might say at the University of Chicago is unlikely to be determined
within the course of a moderated debate.
As our faculty members have said in their open letter, “the defense of freedom of
expression cannot be taken to mean that white supremacy, anti-semitism, misogyny,
homophobia, anti-Catholicism, and islamophobia must be afforded the rights and
opportunity to be aired on a university campus. [...] Our decisions about who we provide
access and opportunity to speak on campus cannot be separated from the our country’s
extensive historical legacies of oppression and inequality in which the University of
Chicago is deeply embedded. In the current social and political climate of the country--in
which the rights and safety of immigrant, black, Muslim, and LGBTQ communities are
routinely threatened--the hate speech represented in Bannon's body of work are not the
insignificant musings of a fringe political group, but rather the governing philosophy of
the chief executive and a newly emboldened political movement based on white
supremacy and religious intolerance. Rather than normalizing hate speech by granting it a
privileged forum, the university should model inclusion for a country that is reeling from
the consequences of racism, xenophobia, and hate.” We wholeheartedly agree. Given the
current political climate, do we as a University really wish to be seen as legitimizing the
ethically and morally repugnant views of an extreme white nationalist such as Steve
Bannon? We sincerely hope not, and certainly we have no obligation to do so.
We alumni therefore call upon the University of Chicago to revoke its invitation to
Stephen Bannon. If this is not possible, we ask the University to be extremely transparent
about its invitation, including any fees that the University will be covering for Bannon, so
that we know how much the University values his contributions to the freedom of
expression and will be able to take that into consideration the next time we are asked for
contributions. Furthermore, we ask that any money raised from this event be given over
to RSOs on campus that work to represent the rights of marginalized students, so that the
University not lend itself the appearance of condoning or profiting from white
supremacy.
Finally, we would like to know what other guests the University intends to invite this
year who will engage and challenge the views that Steve Bannon expresses in order to
uphold the commitment to freedom of expression and discussion on campus. If the
University feels that Bannon’s views are worth a hearing, surely it is at least equally
valuable, and in the spirit of our University, to hold them up to critical analysis.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned Alumni of the University of Chicago
If you are an alum member at the University of Chicago and would like to add your
signature to this letter, please send an email to
alumniagainstbannonatuchicago@gmail.com. Please include your year of graduation
and affiliation. Signatures will be added daily. If you are not an alum but share the
sentiments expressed in this letter, we encourage you to tell others and organize your
own affinity groups to speak out.