Some good news about free speech for the University of Chicago. This morning all of us got this message from the University President:
Dear Members of the University Community,Today, I am thrilled to announce that an anonymous donor has committed $100 million in support of free inquiry and expression at the University of Chicago. Last year, the University launched the Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, and it will mark its first anniversary next week. With this extraordinary gift, the Chicago Forum will thrive and endure for years to come.
Successfully upholding free inquiry and expression in a university requires a long-term commitment to building a culture that supports it, that flourishes from it, that even demands it. This is fundamental to a university that is truth seeking. Each generation of UChicago’s community has contributed new layers to the institution in protection of free inquiry and expression, from founding president William Rainey Harper’s vocal defense of academic freedom to the adoption of the Kalven Report and on to the Chicago Principles.
The Chicago Forum is the newest layer–an environment set aside for us and others to grapple with important issues related to the preservation of academic freedom and the practice of free expression. The historic framing documents and the Chicago Principles summarize our institution’s best thinking on our philosophy and policies over time. But the actual practice of free expression takes place every day–in classrooms in every department and school, in dormitories and dining halls, and on the quads. This living culture and the norms we create by it involves engagement from each of us in our varied roles: tradeoffs and decisions and the cultivation of habits of mind and attitudes. In my view, the collective culture we build is so important that it deserves to have a place where it can be continuously discussed across the University and with partners from other universities and sectors of society.
The magnitude of this gift mirrors the conviction of its donor. It was not made in furtherance of any ideology or political agenda. Rather, it is in the belief that this university has a calling to be principled and effective. The donor’s generosity represents a strong endorsement of the potential for the Chicago Forum to serve as the next step in our living commitment to upholding free inquiry and expression. It is to be the venue for the whole of the University community to come together and undertake the study and practice of all aspects of free inquiry and expression, and to do so in partnership with others beyond the University.
Already in its first year, the Chicago Forum has made a strong case for itself during this highly contested period for higher education. On many occasions student groups sought the support of the Chicago Forum as they were reflecting on the practice of the Chicago Principles as issues they cared about deeply were unfolding. It also sponsored more than a dozen events on challenging topics ranging from the conflict in Israel and Gaza to significant Supreme Court rulings, as well as one with the University’s faculty about my decision to end the encampment last spring. Through the Academic Freedom Institute it formed, the Chicago Forum convened leaders from more than 20 colleges and universities to participate in workshops and explore how to strengthen academic freedom at their institutions. We live in an era marked by intense polarization, and having a place where rigorous inquiry and reason are exercised through the mechanisms of dialogue is important. With this gift, the University will expand the depth and reach of such vital work.
In the near term, the gift will enable the Chicago Forum to launch a variety of initiatives, including those that will allow it to expand its work on orientation programming, to offer support for faculty to explore free expression through a diversity of academic lenses, to establish a fellowship program for junior scholars, and to provide resources that will allow the University to bring prominent figures, including leading public intellectuals, to campus to engage in dialogue with the broader community. You can learn more about the gift and its impact at UChicago News.
I want to extend my deepest gratitude for the visionary support of the gift’s benefactor, which will ensure that the University remains at the forefront of defending and promoting the principles of free inquiry and expression. As we continue to navigate a world that increasingly demands thoughtful, courageous engagement with important issues, this gift will not only help empower our community to meet the moment with integrity and intellectual rigor, but also inspire others by our example.
Sincerely,
Paul
—
Paul Alivisatos
President
$100 million bucks! And all for free speech! It’s amazing. The Chicago Forum, a new initiative, is poised to ensure that the University community knows about (and follows) the Chicago Principles of Free Speech and the Kalven Principle of institutional neutrality. Look at the link above to see what it does.
Now nobody knows the donor, but he or she must have been loaded to give us all that dosh. Right now I’m fighting to get one particular unit of the University to obey Kalven, and the University has been sitting on its hands about my report for three months. Maybe I can use this grant as leverage to get our school to take action, or at least set up a process to report violations of institutional neutrality. Right now, the unit responsible for reporting those violations happens to be ME.
But still: $100,000,000!!!
Forgive me if I put up two pieces on Israel’s wars today (i’m not sure what I’ll write about next), but it’s not only on my mind, it’s the main news besides the American election. (See the daily “Nooz” for this other stuff).
I don’t like to use the words “self-hating Jew,” for I don’t think that an anti-Semitic Jew can really hate himself or herself. (Yes, there are anti-Semitic Jews: who do you think runs “J Street” and “Jewish Voice for Peace?”). I prefer “Jew-hating Jew,” and although that may seem a bit harsh when applied to Bernie Sanders, he has repeatedly taken actions against the state of Israel. It’s not because he hates Netanyahu, though I’m sure he does, but because he seemingly doesn’t favor the existence of the state of Israel. In other words, he’s an anti-Zionist, which to me equates to “anti-Semite,” ergo my characterization.
Again, I know some readers will disagree, but right now I think it’s the moral duty of the U.S. to help our closest ally in the Middle East—the only democracy in the Middle East—and fight against the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah. Given that the Israeli Army has taken great care not kill civilians as far as they can help it, and has produced one of the lowest civilians killed/Hamas terrorists killed in the history of warfare, there is no reason to decry Israel for a “disproportionate response” to being attacked by Hamas. For crying out loud, everyone agreed with Israel at the war’s outset that Hamas had to be eliminated after the butchery of last October 7. But when Israel tried to do that, and tried to avoid killing civilians, the world screamed “genocide” in response. It’s crazy.
So now, according to PBS, Bernie has prepared a resolution reducing American arms sales to Israel, just when it needs them to defend itself against Hezbollah as well. Click to read the PBS article.
An excerpt:
Sen. Bernie Sanders is preparing several resolutions that would stop more than $20 billion in U.S. arms sales to Israel, a longshot effort but the most substantive pushback yet from Congress over the devastation in Gaza ahead of the first year anniversary of the Israel-Hamas war.
In a letter to Senate colleagues on Wednesday, Sanders said the U.S. cannot be “complicit in this humanitarian disaster.” The action would force an eventual vote to block the arms sales to Israel, though majority passage is highly unlikely.
“Much of this carnage in Gaza has been carried out with U.S.-provided military equipment,” Sanders, I-Vt., wrote.
As the war grinds toward a second year, and with the outcome of President Joe Biden’s efforts to broker a cease-fire deal and hostage release uncertain, the resolutions from Sanders would seek to reign in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assault on Gaza. The war has killed some 41,000 people in Gaza after the surprise Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack that killed about 1,200 people in Israel, and abducted 250 others, with militants still holding around 100 hostages. [JAC: Where, PBS, did you get that figure, and how many of them were Hamas fighters?]
While it’s doubtful the politically split Senate would pass the measures, the move is designed to send a message to the Netanyahu regime that its war effort is eroding the U.S.’s longtime bipartisan support for Israel. Sanders said he is working with other colleagues on the measures.
Key Senate Democrats have been pushing the Biden administration to end the Israel-Hamas war and lessen the humanitarian crisis, particularly in Gaza, where people’s homes, hospitals, schools and entire Palestinian families are being wiped out.
I would ask Senator Sanders and all of his running dogs in the Senate, as well as the Israel-hating “squad” in the House, this question: “How do YOU propose to wipe out Hamas and end its terrorism if you put shackles on Israel, and, especially, call for a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power?”
Yes, I know that we don’t know what will happen after Hamas is defeated, as it will be, but as I recall, when the war began, everyone agreed with Israel that Hamas needed to be extirpated. But when Israel started doing that, and civilians died (put most of their deaths at the door of Hamas), they decided that no, Israel cannot be allowed to win this war. And if Israel doesn’t win, Hamas’s terrorism will continue (remember, Hamas vowed to repeat October 7 over and over and over again).
So, it galls me endlessly when the “progressives” like Sanders conveniently neglect several facts:
If Sanders really wanted to do something constructive, he could pass a resolution hauling Hamas and Hezbollah before the International Court of Justice for genocide. But of course neither he nor anybody else will do that.
It’s clear that the “progressive” Left in America is palpably against Israel in this war, decrying it constantly but almost never mentioning the war crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Democratic “squad” in the House, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and their allies, are part of this anti-Israel brigade. And I’m fairly certain that, if elected, Kamala Harris would join right in. That won’t make me vote for Trump, but I was certain, when I voted for Biden four years ago, that he would never become “woke”, for he vowed to “reach across the aisle.” I was wrong. And I’m pretty sure that Harris will be even more “progressive,” which is why Russia is trying to sabotage the U.S. elections in favor of Trump. (Their consideration is, of course, largely Ukraine.)
At any rate, opposition to Israel in the war is fueled by lies and misinformation, and, if I wanted to be cynical, I’d say that Bernie. his colleagues, and the Squad could care less if the state of Israel disappeared. And without US aid, it might.
One more comment, this one directed especially at Thomas “I Am a Moron” Friedman at the NYT. (See his latest column.) I’ll put it in caps: A TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS NOT THE “SOLUTION” TO THE WAR OR THE EMNITY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS. The Palestinians don’t want such a solution (they’ve rejected it repeatedly, for what they want is a one-state solution that eliminates Israel), nor do the Israelis, who now realize that a Palestinian state abutting their own will subject them to constant terrorism. The two-state “solution” can be possible only if there are honest brokers and Palestinian leaders who truly want their people to thrive (I don’t see Netanyahu as an “honest broker” in this respect.)
Such a solution if possible, is decades away. So people who propose such a “solution” are deeply ignorant of history. And that includes Bernie Sanders, who seems superannuated to me.
We have a new submission, so I have at least two more days of reserve photos. Today’s photos are of LIONS and are from Phil Frymire, whose leopard photos were posted a week ago. As I said, I met him in Newark in line for the plane to Johannesburg; we were headed for separate safari trips and he recognized me. Phil’s captions are indented, and you can click on the photos to enlarge them.
Continuing with the big cats, here are some lion (Panthera leo) photos. We saw lions at both Timbavati and Mala Mala. One pride at Mala Mala had twenty members: two adult males and eighteen females, juveniles and cubs.
We begin with some nature red in tooth and claw. This is a Mala Mala pride feeding on a buffalo carcass.We visited this kill site in Timbavati several times. A pride had taken down a pregnant giraffe and fed on it for several days. On the last day we visited, there was very little left. This female was gnawing on the scraps. You can see the giraffe’s hide in the foreground and its defleshed skull to the left.
Here she is biting with the side of her jaw, using the carnassial teeth to shear some meat off the bone.
Nursing cubs jockeying for position:
Mala Mala cubs with a bad case of mange which they are apparently transmitting to their mother:
Two juveniles:
Relaxing on the sand near the river at Mala Mala:
Profile of a Mala Mala male:
The same male showing the flehmen response, which moves scent molecules into the vomeronasal organ for analysis. He was part of a “lion wedding party”, as Jerry’s guide put it. I think our guide called it a “honeymoon”. [JAC: Actiually, DAN called it a “lion wedding party”.]
Another shot of the flehmen grimace. He was relentlessly following the female and sampling her rear end: