Connect with us

All Articles

University Senate To Affirm UChicago’s Report On Freedom Of Expression

LowIn looking at the proposed agenda for the University Senate plenary scheduled for this afternoon, Bwog noticed one particular proposed resolution that stood out. As part of new business, the senate plans to address a proposed resolution affirming the University of Chicago’s report on freedom of expression.

It is important to note that this report is not the letter that UChicago sent out to its class of 2020 on the topic of not supporting trigger warnings, nor the open letter the faculty wrote in response to the former letter. Instead, the report was issued by the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago, a separate entity that was appointed in July 2014, long before either of those letters were sent.

That said, the question remains why Columbia would choose to affirm this statement instead of crafting its own in response to the discourse surrounding the implementation of safe spaces and trigger warnings on campus and in the classroom.

Here is the text of the proposed resolution:

WHEREAS, freedom of expression is essential for what a university is and does, and

WHEREAS, Columbia University has long been a strong supporter of freedom of expression, and

WHEREAS, that support is expressed in the Affirmative Statement in the Rules of University Conduct, and

WHEREAS, freedom of expression on college campuses has come under attack in recent years and has become a contested national issue, and

WHEREAS, the University of Chicago’s Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression is a balanced approach to the issue,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Columbia University Senate subscribe to the principles in the University of Chicago statement.

The report by the University of Chicago committee can be found following the proposed resolution. The plenary to discuss the resolution will take place at 1:15 PM this afternoon in 1501 International Affairs.

Updates on the plenary to come.

Update (9/23/16, 2:34pm): While this resolution was discussed by the University Senate at the plenary, no vote was made. The resolution is still open, and will be discussed further at later meetings. Full coverage of the plenary to come this evening.

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.



  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Bwog seems to have shifted a bit faux left this year.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous >”the question remains why Columbia would choose to affirm this statement instead of crafting its own in response to the discourse surrounding the implementation of safe spaces and trigger warnings on campus and in the classroom.”

    No? Did you even check to see if the report talks about trigger warning on syllabi or the abstract idea of there being spaces that safe? The issue at hand is way more broad than the myopic topics that have dominated discussion over the summer. Come on Bwog, there’s being editorial and then there’s thinly placing your opinion under a guise of editorial comment.

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Popular This Week

    Sorry. No data so far.

    Recent Comments

    Ah, yes. Cornell University. Ah, yes yes. Such wonderful trees. You have done it again, BOGW. (read more)
    How To Relive Columbia Arbor Day At Home
    May 27, 2020
    Thanks for writing this! Definitely enjoyed the easy reading part and loved the art! (read more)
    Bwog Book Club: W.I.T.C.H. (The Graphic Novel Series)
    May 23, 2020
    TRULY GREAT TIPS BWOG 🦁❤️🦁❤️🎈 (read more)
    Open Letter To Our Professors: Zoom Do’s And Don’ts
    May 22, 2020
    I thought she was a great CC prof. (read more)
    Happy Grad Students: Part One in a One Part Series
    May 20, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel