��֭����

In 2014, American colleges faced an existential crisis — campuses erupted over controversial speakers as the heckler’s veto increasingly replaced debate. In response, the University of Chicago drafted a landmark statement reaffirming the school’s commitment to free speech.

Since then, more than 110 colleges and universities have adopted the “,” commonly known as the Chicago Statement or the Chicago principles, transforming the landscape of higher education in the country.

In a star-studded,  last month, the University of Chicago celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the iconic Statement and its famous assertion, “It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

View video

The mood was celebratory, reflective, and at times foreboding as panelists shared insights into the drafting and implementation of the principles, debated the future of free speech in academia, and explored the impact of artificial intelligence on expression.

In his opening remarks, university President Paul Alivisatos reflected on the “crisis” in higher education regarding academic freedom, and that it is nearly “impossible” to have a serious discussion about the topic without mentioning the Chicago Statement. While the causes of this crisis are varied, Alivisatos pointed to the principles as a tonic to cure the ills of higher education. Reflecting on the cultural moment in which the principles were drafted, he reminded the audience of a widely cited line from the statement:

“Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.”

He concluded by inviting other universities to join UChicago in its “compelling vision” for the preservation of free expression.

A  in the fight for free speech, the university welcomed several members of the original drafting committee to discuss the legacy of the principles. The drafters expressed surprise by how quickly the principles spread to other campuses, but were proud of the impact they’ve had. The real focus of the committee, though, was to codify what Alivisatos described as the institution’s unique “culture built on the wellspring of free expression,” rather than something entirely new.

The challenge to universities is much greater today than it was 10 years ago.

Geoffrey Stone, the First Amendment scholar and chair of the committee, spoke of the “fundamental challenge” universities face in encouraging students and faculty to speak their minds. Kenneth Warren, professor of English, echoed this by speaking of faculty members “who are taking on the deep responsibility of exploring difficult questions.”

The conversation was engaging and frank — all faculty members acknowledged challenges and remained open to the possibility that mistakes may be made along the way — sentiments true to the ethos of the principles themselves.

Adopting the Chicago Statement

Statements & Policies

Since 2015, nearly 100 colleges and universities have adopted some version of the Chicago Statement on the principles of free expression.

Read More

Columbia University Provost Angela Olinto, another member of the original committee, highlighted the practical value of an institution adhering to a free speech statement and embracing institutional neutrality. She explained how these principles help administrators defend speech by giving them guidelines to reference in response to censorious mobs — a benefit that FIREhas long championed. She then explained that once an institution defends an individual’s right to speak freely, it is important that the speaker in turn seize the opportunity to do so.

As the panel noted, FIREhas endorsed the Chicago Statement since the  and has maintained the widely referenced list of adoptions nationwide. At a time when free speech and academic freedom face constant threats, we hope to see more institutions join the ever-growing list of those committed to fostering the free exchange of ideas.

“The challenge to universities is much greater today than it was 10 years ago,” Stone told FIREin an interview following the panel. “Put simply, speech that one finds offensive and even hurtful in public discourse must be protected, and those who disagree must be given reasonable opportunities to respond.”

He added, “This can be challenging, but it is essential if we are to preserve the most fundamental values of higher education at this very challenging time.”

Want to learn more about the Chicago Statement? View ��֭����’s resources, including the list of institutions that have adopted the statement, fast facts, and . If you’d like to work with our team to encourage adoption on your campus, reach out to ��֭����’s Policy Reform team at speechcodes@thefire.org.