040225

Department of Education to Investigate UChicago for Alleged Racial Discrimination

By NATHANIEL RODWELL-SIMON | Deputy News Editor and ZACHARY LEITER | Senior News Reporter

The University of Chicago is one of 45 schools under investigation by the Department of Education for alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The announcement alleges that the University has engaged in “race-exclusionary practices in [its] graduate programs” through its partnership with the PhD Project, an organization that works to expand diversity in business school Ph.D. programs. Booth School of Business’s Stevens Doctoral Program is included on the Project’s website as a university partner.

The PhD Project, the Department of Education’s announcement reads, “purports to provide doctoral students with insights into obtaining a Ph.D. and networking opportunities, but limits eligibility based on the race of participants.”

In a statement to the Maroon, the PhD Project explained its mission and clarified that they currently accept applications from anyone interested in their program.

“For the last 30 years, The PhD Project has worked to expand the pool of workplace talent by developing business school faculty who inspire, mentor, and support tomorrow’s leaders. Our vision is

Trump Signs Order to Begin Dismantling Education Department

By ZACHARY LEITER | Senior News Reporter

In an executive order signed March 20, President Donald Trump instructed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to begin dismantling her agency, threatening federal financial aid, administration of Title I funds to low-income schools, and civil rights enforcement at educational institutions.

Republicans have called to abolish the Department of Education since the agency’s inception, but until now those calls never gained traction. Flanked in the Oval Office by children seated at school desks, Trump told reporters, “It sounds strange, doesn’t it? Department of Education. We’re going to eliminate it.”

Trump’s order directs McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the

NEWS: Religious Scholar

Martin Marty Dies at 97

2

closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

It also instructs McMahon to ensure that Department of Education funds are allocated and disbursed in line “with Federal law and Administration policy,” specifically referencing a previous executive order aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Both McMahon and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special education, and civil rights enforcement would

GREY CITY: “Choosing to Govern

Itself”: How the Protests of 1969

Shaped UChicago’s Disciplinary System

“remain intact” and continue to operate from within the Department. However, Trump’s executive order did not state that any existing Department programs would be continued.

On March 21, Trump told reporters that key Department of Education programs, including its $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio and its oversight of special education programs, would be moved outside of the Department.

According to Trump, the Small Business Administration will oversee student loans, and the Department of Health and Human Services will manage special education and nutrition programs.

The Department of Education, as a congressionally created agency, cannot be abolished without an act of Congress, James

VIEWPOINTS: The Lines We Will Not Cross

Speta, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law administrative law professor, told the Maroon in February.

After Trump signed Thursday’s executive order, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said he would introduce a bill in Congress to eliminate the Department. However, Senate Republicans almost certainly lack the 60 votes needed for such legislation.

Established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the Department of Education awards federal Pell Grants to undergraduate students “who display exceptional financial need.” Fifteen percent of UChicago students and more than 30 percent of undergraduates nationwide receive Pell Grants.

The agency is also responsible for administering the federal student loan pro-

ARTS: Seasoned Angst and Stellar Sounds

“The University prohibits unlawful discrimination and will cooperate with the [Office for Civil Rights] on its investigation.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 1

to create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders who are committed to excellence and to each other, through networking, mentorship, and unique events,” the statement read. “This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision. The PhD Project was founded with the goal of providing more role models in the front of business classrooms, which remains our goal today.”

UChicago is one of 13 private universities, including Yale and Cornell, that are targets of the investigation, alongside 32 public universities.

The investigation follows a February 14 letter sent by Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, which informed educational institutions and agencies that they had 14 days to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or “face potential loss of federal funding.”

In the letter, Trainor wrote that universities’ “embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia.”

Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, the University has quietly removed many mentions of DEI from its websites.

In a statement, the University informed the Maroon that it had received

notice of the Department of Education’s investigation.

“The University has been notified that a complaint was filed with the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and an investigation was opened. The University prohibits unlawful discrimination and will cooperate with OCR on its investigation,” the statement read.

The Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Religious Scholar Martin E. Marty Dies at 97

By ISAIAH GLICK | Senior News Reporter

Martin Marty (Ph.D. ’56), the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity, passed away on February 25. He was 97 years old.

Marty taught in the UChicago Divinity School for 35 years before his retirement at the age of 70. In 1962, Life included him on a list of their “Red-Hot Hundred,” calling him a “penetrating, outspoken critic of suburban church life in America.” Time described him in a 1986 profile as “generally acknowledged to be the most influential living interpreter of religion in the U.S.”

Prior to joining the University as a Divinity School faculty member in 1963, Marty served as the founding pastor for the Lutheran Church of the Holy Spirit in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, which Life characterized as the fastest-growing Lutheran parish in the United States at the time. In 1956, he became a columnist and contributing editor for the Christian Century, where he wrote about religion and public life for nearly 60 years.

Over the course of his career, Marty earned the National Humanities Medal, the Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and 75 honorary degrees. In his honor, the University of Chicago renamed the Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion, which he cofounded, as the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion in 1998.

Marty authored or co-authored 66 books and edited more than 21. His 1970 book, Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience in America, won the 1972 National Book Award in the “Philosophy and Religion” category. He wrote hundreds of scholarly papers; penned over 5,000 columns, editorials, and magazine articles; and supervised 115 Ph.D. dissertations over his career.

As an academic, Marty was recognized for his prodigious work output. Between the publication of his first and last book, he averaged more than 1.5 books per year, all while maintaining a full teaching load.

According to the 1986 Time profile, Marty’s book output was the subject of a joke at the Divinity School.

“An outsider phones, asking to speak with Church Historian Martin E. Marty,” the joke went. “A secretary says, ‘I’m sorry, but professor Marty is writing a book.’ The caller responds, ‘That’s all right. I’ll hold.’”

Marty regularly left Hyde Park for speaking engagements every week, and consistently provided quotes to reporters on a variety of topics.

But none of that stopped him from engaging deeply with his colleagues’ work. David Tracy, the Andrew Thomas Greeley and Grace McNichols Greeley Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Catholic Studies, who co-taught a class with Marty, once told a reporter: “Every

time I mention a book, Marty’s already reviewed it.”

Marty’s research interests ranged from the life of reformation figure Martin Luther to the changing church landscape of the 1960s and ’70s. Although Marty was a devout Lutheran, he was always motivated by a strong belief in religious pluralism.

In a January 19 Chicago Sun-Times article on the religious landscape of America during a second Trump presidency, columnist Neil Steinberg quoted Marty, “Nothing is more important than to keep the richness of our pluralism alive. To be aware of many different people and dif-

ferent ways, and deal with it.”

In 1964, Marty attended the Second Vatican Council as a Protestant observer. Brett Colasacco, a professor at the Divinity School and the author of a forthcoming biography of Marty, wrote that he “valued distinctiveness as well as diversity, and he commanded the attention, along with the respect, of audiences spanning the nation’s then-already-deepening political divides.”

His commitment to pluralism and understanding other religions led Marty to codirect the Fundamentalism Project during the 1980s and ’90s, studying con-

Martin Marty in 1990. courtesy of the university of chicago photographic archive

“Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly used the agency to target universities nationwide for perceived discrimination.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 1

gram and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which UChicago’s financial aid office uses to determine eligibility for University grants and Federal Work-Study.

Along with providing financial support for students, the Department of Education enforces civil rights protections by withholding federal assistance from programs or institutions not in compliance. This enforcement also applies to private institutions, like UChicago, which receive federal funding for research and other activities.

The agency does not, as is often suggested by its opponents, control school policies and curricula or set minimum standards for graduation or enrollment.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s sweeping policy framework aimed at expanding executive power under the Trump administration, called for moving many of the Department’s key functions to other agencies. Per the plan, the Treasury Department would administer student loans and the Department of Justice would enforce civil rights laws in schools.

Stuart Eizenstat, chief domestic policy advisor to Carter, told the Maroon in February that such a reorganization would prove disastrous. “Those responsibilities would then be fulfilled by people without an education background,” Eizenstat said.

Whether an agency could refrain from acting on its congressional authority or shift its responsibilities to another agency, Speta told the Maroon, depended on the specifics of the legislation that created the agency and on unresolved legal questions concerning separation of powers.

Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly used the agency to target universities nationwide for perceived discrimination.

UChicago is currently one of 45 universities under investigation by the Department for alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by institutions that receive federal funding. In announcing the investigation, the Department cited the schools’ partnerships with the PhD Project, an organization that works to expand diversity in business school Ph.D. programs.

On March 19, the Trump administration

froze $175 million in funding to the University of Pennsylvania for its policies regarding transgender athletes, which the administration referred to as “forcing women to compete with men in sports.”

On March 7, the administration canceled $400 million in grants to Columbia University “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students” and demanded, among other actions, that the school alter its procedures for handling protests.

These moves follow a February 14 letter sent by Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, which informed educational institutions and agencies that they had two weeks to eliminate DEI programs or “face potential loss of federal funding.”

Although the current push to eliminate the Department is the most concerted effort in recent years, Republicans have long campaigned against the Department and attempted to abolish the agency as recently as 2023.

In his 1982 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan called for “dismantling the Departments of Energy and Education.”

Reagan’s push lacked sufficient congressional support and ultimately fell through. It is unclear to what extent congressional Republicans will work with Trump to dismantle the Department. The 2023 attempt to abolish the Department, attached as an amendment to a parents’ rights bill, similarly lacked enough Republican support to pass.

In its 2024 platform, the Republican Party pledged to “close the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. and send it back to the States, where it belongs, and let the States run our educational system as it should be run.”

On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump complained that the Department of Education had been infiltrated by “radicals, zealots, and Marxists.”

McMahon, who was confirmed as Secretary of Education by the Senate on March 3, wrote in a memo that day that she viewed her and her staff’s role as “accomplishing the elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education—a momentous final mission—quickly and responsibly.”

Eight days later, McMahon fired more than 1,300 Department employees, though she was later ordered to reinstate many of them after a federal judge determined that the mass layoff was likely illegal.

Asked for comment on the executive order and the firings, the Department of Education referred the Maroon to a Thursday statement by McMahon.

“Today’s Executive Order is a history-making action by President Trump to free future generations of American students and forge opportunities for their success,” McMahon’s statement reads in part. “We are sending education back to the states where it so rightly belongs.”

Critics of the Department typically point to low National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, a benchmark assessment administered by the Department that tracks student performance in subjects like math, reading, and science, which have continued to decrease for many students

since the pandemic.

In a March 19 comment to Fox News, the Trump administration provided additional ways in which it claimed the Department is failing.

“Over the past four years, Democrats have allowed millions of illegal minors into the country, straining school resources and diverting focus from American students,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Fox. “Coupled with the rise of anti-American CRT and DEI indoctrination, this is harming our most vulnerable [students].”

“Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them,” Trump’s executive order said. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon contributed reporting.

NEWS

Sabrina Chang, head editor

Gabriel Kraemer, editor

Anika Krishnaswamy, editor

Peter Maheras, editor

GREY CITY

Rachel Liu, editor

Celeste Alcalay, editor

Anika Krishnaswamy, editor

VIEWPOINTS

Sofia Cavallone, co-head editor

Cherie Fernandes, co-head editor

Camille Cypher, editor

ARTS

Miki Mukawa, co-head editor

Nolan Shaffer, co-head editor

SPORTS Josh Grossman, editor

Shrivas Raghavan, editor

DATA AND TECHNOLOGY

Nikhil Patel, lead developer

Austin Steinhart, lead developer

PODCASTS

Jake Zucker, co-head editor

William Kimani, co-head editor

CROSSWORDS

Henry Josephson, co-head editor

Pravan Chakravarthy, co-head editor

PHOTO AND VIDEO

Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon, head editor

DESIGN Eliot Aguera y Arcas, editor Kaiden Wu, editor

COPY

Coco Liu, chief Maelyn McKay, chief

Natalie Earl, chief Abagail Poag, chief

Ananya Sahai, chief

Mazie Witter, chief

Megan Ha, chief

SOCIAL MEDIA

Max Fang, manager Jayda Hobson, manager

NEWSLETTER

Amy Ma, editor

BUSINESS

Jack Flintoft, co-director of operations Ananya Sahai, director of marketing

Executive Slate: editor@chicagomaroon.com

For advertising inquiries, please contact ads@chicagomaroon.com

Circulation: 2,500

©

Tiffany Li, editor-in-chief

Elena Eisenstadt, deputy editor-in-chief

Evgenia Anastasakos, managing editor

Haebin Jung, chief production officer

Crystal Li & Chichi Wang, co-chief financial officers

The Maroon Editorial Board consists of the editors-in-chief and select staff of the Maroon

“Marty stayed true to his instincts to come ‘not to condemn, not to praise, but to understand.’”

servative religious movements around the world. According to codirector R. Scott Appleby (Ph.D. ’85), “In taking on such a massive comparative project with ideological pitfalls to the left and the right, Marty stayed true to his instincts to come ‘not to condemn, not to praise, but to understand.’”

Outside of the University, Marty was involved in a number of social causes. In 1965, he criticized televangelist Billy Graham as a “man in transit between epochs and value systems [who] has chosen to disengage himself and distract us by shouting about the end of history.” Mar-

ty not only publicly opposed the Vietnam War but also helped found Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, a religious pacifist group with members including Martin Luther King Jr.

Later in life, Marty spoke out against the Iraq War, criticizing the media in 2002 for ignoring religious voices opposed to the war. “No one is reported as expecting the Bush administration to pay attention to the voices of religious questioning,” he wrote. “When war impinges, as in this case, only supportive religious leaders are heeded, cited, and responded to.”

ation of the fictitious theologian Franz Bibfeldt. After a friend invented Bibfeldt as a source for his term paper when he and Marty were students at Concordia Seminary, Marty began inserting references to the theologian in the school magazine.

When Concordia’s administration found out about the hoax, they revoked Marty’s offer of a parish appointment in London and instead sent him to Grace Lutheran Church in River Forest, Illinois. The church required him to enroll in a UChicago Ph.D. program, which ultimately began his academic career.

vinity School, running an annual Bibfeldt Symposium, establishing the “Donnelley Stool of Bibfeldt Studies,” and co-editing the book The Unrelieved Paradox: Studies in the Theology of Franz Bibfeldt.

According to UChicago News, Marty is survived by his wife Harriet; his sons Peter, Joel, Micah, and John; his foster son Jeff and foster daughter Fran; his stepdaughter Ursula; nine grandchildren; and 18 great-grandchildren.

We ask anyone who has memories they want to share about professor Marty to please contact us at editor@chicagomaroon.com. CONTINUED FROM

Marty was also known for the cocre-

Marty promoted the study of Franz Bibfeldt throughout his time at the Di-

UChicago Denounces Anti-Israel Vandalism as Trump Targets Antisemitism in Chicago

By NATHANIEL RODWELL-SIMON | Deputy News Editor and ZACHARY LEITER | Senior News Reporter

The University released a statement denouncing the vandalism of a Maroons for Israel (MFI) installation on the quad as a violation of “the University’s longstanding commitment to free expression.”

UChicago’s March 13 statement was released hours after the Trump administration told Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson that the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism would be directing its attention to antisemitism at Chicago-area universities.

The Task Force to Combat Antisemitism’s March 13 letter to Johnson and the mayors of New York City, Boston, and Los Angeles informed them that the Trump administration “was aware of allegations that the schools in their respective cities may have failed to protect Jewish students from unlawful discrimination, in potential violation of federal law.”

The Department of Justice (DoJ) said the Task Force would “meet with city leadership, impacted students, local law enforcement, and community members as it gathers information about these incidents and considers whether federal intervention is warranted.”

“Too many elected officials chose not to stand up to a rising tide of antisemitism in our cities and campuses following the horrific events of October 7, 2023,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a statement accompanying the letter. “Actions have consequences — inaction does, too.”

A University Student Centers–approved MFI installation on the main quad outside Swift Hall was vandalized on March 7, per an MFI statement.

The installation consisted of a crib containing an Israeli flag and a poster with photos of Kfir Bibas, a nine-month-old Israeli taken hostage during the October 7, 2023 attacks and later killed. The poster was partially ripped and left on the ground.

In its statement, the University restated its position regarding damage to approved installations and noted that the University of Chicago Police Department is currently investigating the incident. The University also shared information about how students can receive support for freedom of expression–related concerns.

“Maintaining UChicago’s environment of free expression for a wide diversity of perspectives takes unremitting effort on everyone’s behalf,” the statement read.

In its March 7 statement posted on Instagram, MFI condemned the vandalism.

“Earlier today, our crib installation highlighting the barbaric murder of Kfir Bibas was vandalized on the University of Chicago quadrangles,” MFI wrote. “We are appalled at this inhumane behavior, which shows insensitivity at best, and support at worst, for the slaughter of an innocent nine month old infant whose only crime was being Jewish.”

“This act of hatred does not discourage

us, but only motivates our advocacy on campus,” MFI continued. “We are committed to working with the administration and appropriate personnel to penalize the perpetrators of this heinous act. Jewish students can’t look away from antisemitism, and neither should you.”

Over the last year, MFI’s installations have been vandalized or stolen several times. During the pro-Palestine encampment last spring, Israeli flags and pro-Israel signs on the main quad were repeatedly stolen or removed from their approved locations by unknown individuals. At the time, an MFI representative told the Maroon the “desecration of a University-approved installment” was “despicable and shouldn’t be tolerated at the University of Chicago.”

In November, an MFI banner hanging outside of Kent Chemical Laboratory was stolen.

The University’s public response to the most recent vandalism comes as the Trump administration targets antisemitism at institutions of higher education nationwide.

In February, the Department of Education announced an investigation into Northwestern University, alongside four other universities, for “antisemitic discrim-

Maroons for Israel’s installation on March 4. nathaniel rodwell-simon

“Antisemitism is antithetical to the University of Chicago’s values, as are other forms of bias and discrimination.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 4

ination and harassment” claims related to the university’s handling of pro-Palestine demonstrations. The Department of Education has since sent warning letters to 60 schools on similar grounds.

The DoJ and three other federal agencies canceled $400 million in grants to Columbia University last week “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” Since then, the Trump administration has demanded that Columbia alter its disciplinary procedures, ban mask-wearing, and place the school’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department under academic receivership.

On March 8, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia graduate. Khalil, a lead negotiator during Columbia’s 2024 pro-Palestine

encampment, is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. and has not been charged with a crime.

Following the Trump administration’s targeting of Columbia, UChicago’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors sent a letter to University President Paul Alivisatos and Provost Katherine Baicker asking them not to comply with federal directives or change University practices beyond what is “strictly required” by law.

“We ask the University to publicly commit to rejecting any efforts to equate political disagreement with religious, racial, or national discrimination and to also not sharing the names or contact information of students, staff, or faculty based on their perceived or actual political opinions or affiliations,” the letter read.

Although UChicago is not currently known to be under federal scrutiny for antisemitism, the University recently re-

ceived a “D” grade on the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) 2025 campus antisemitism report card, released March 3.

The ADL praised UChicago for its campus Jewish life, which it rated “Excellent,” and for the University’s “swift action to address campus encampments.” However, the organization expressed concern about “campus climate and conduct” related to pro-Palestine activism—which the ADL considers antisemitic—and a lack of public disclosure of actions the University has taken to handle antisemitism.

The University disputed the ADL’s negative rating, writing in a March 4 UChicago News statement that the assessment “does not accurately reflect the University or its core values.”

“Antisemitism is antithetical to the University of Chicago’s values, as are other forms of bias and discrimination,” the statement read. “Antisemitism is also in-

compatible with our deep commitment to diversity and inclusion and ensuring that all members of the campus community can participate fully in the life of the University.”

“The University has consistently said it does not tolerate actions that violate University policy or the law, including multiple messages from University leadership on these points,” the statement continued. “At the same time, UChicago has a longstanding tradition against taking collective stances concerning social or political issues outside the University’s core mission, as articulated in the Kalven Report of 1967.”

The University did not respond to a Maroon request for comment regarding whether UChicago has received any communication from federal agencies related to campus antisemitism.

The DoJ and the Department of Education did not respond to requests for comment.

UChicago to Investigate Faculty Member’s Posters for Alleged Antisemitism

By ZACHARY LEITER | Senior News Reporter

UChicago is pursuing an investigation into signs displayed by a faculty member in his office window, per a March 30 University statement.

This is the University’s second investigation into alleged antisemitism on campus in the last month. On March 13, the University denounced the vandalism of a Maroons for Israel (MFI) installation on the quad as a violation of “the University’s longstanding commitment to free expression” and opened a UCPD investigation into the incident.

“The University received a complaint on Saturday, March 29, alleging that a faculty member was displaying an antisemitic sign inside a first floor office, near a window,” the March 30 University statement read.

“Upon discussion, the faculty member voluntarily removed the signage. The University has begun an investigation into the matter, pursuant to the University’s

non-discrimination policy. Discrimination and harassment are antithetical to the University of Chicago’s values and have no place in our community.”

StopAntisemitism, a “grassroots watchdog organization,” posted about a sign at UChicago displaying messages it called “blatant antisemitism and xenophobia” on March 28.

“University of Chicago – Outside a chemistry professor’s classroom, a sign filled with propaganda reads, ‘DEPORT ISRAELIS.’ This is blatant antisemitism and xenophobia which is completely unacceptable, @UChicago. An investigation is needed,” StopAntisemitism’s post on X read.

StopAntisemitism did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.

The Maroon could not confirm whether the University’s March 30 statement and StopAntisemitism’s tweet referred to the same set of signs.

The signs that StopAntisemitism posted about read, in part (retaining original formatting), “ISRAEL MURDERED 18000 CHILDREN… ISRAEL MUST PAY FOR THE MURDERS AND DESTRUCTION.”

“DEPORT SCHOOL BOMBERS AND CHILD MURDERERS,” one sign read in large black and red letters. “DEPORT ISRAELIS.”

Commenting on the University’s March 30 statement, MFI told the Maroon the organization was “glad to see the University enforce its values and await[ed] the results of the investigation.”

The University’s March 13 and March 30 announcements come as the Trump administration targets institutions of higher education across the country for perceived antisemitism.

On March 13, the Trump administration told Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson that the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism would be directing its attention to antisemitism at Chicago-area schools.

The Task Force to Combat Antisemitism’s March 13 letter to Johnson and the mayors of New York City, Boston, and Los Angeles informed them that the Trump administration “was aware of allegations that the schools in their respective cities may have failed to protect Jewish students from unlawful discrimination, in potential violation of federal law.”

Since then, international students and faculty at Columbia, Cornell, and Tufts, among others, have been detained by immigration officers or had visas revoked for their pro-Palestine statements and activities which the Trump administration considers antisemitic.

The University declined to confirm the identity of the involved faculty member or to comment on whether their statement was about the signs in StopAntisemitism’s post.

An updated version of this article can be found on chicagomaroon.com. Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon contributed reporting.

UChicago Researchers “Stand Up for Science” at Downtown Rally

By NATHANIEL RODWELL-SIMON | Deputy News Editor and SOPHIA LIU | News Reporter

UChicago students and faculty, alongside hundreds of researchers and activists from across Illinois, protested the Trump administration’s targeting of scientific research at a rally on Federal Plaza on March 7.

As part of the “Stand Up for Science” campaign, scientists at various U.S. universities, labs, and policy organizations planned events worldwide that day to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” Volunteer organizers also led major rallies in New York; Washington, D.C.; Paris; and dozens of other cities.

Since January, the Trump administration has targeted many of the normal functions of federal scientific organizations—freezing grant funding, slashing the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) coverage of “indirect” research costs, and firing or offering buyouts to thousands of employees at federal agencies.

While many of these efforts have been blocked or temporarily stopped by courts, the future of research programs that rely on federal grants to operate—along with federally funded research in general—is in doubt.

Universities including the University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University, and Duke University have cut graduate admissions and rescinded acceptances, and Duke has put plans to build a new research center on hold.

At the Federal Plaza rally, the Maroon spoke to Rob Rodriguez, a Ph.D. candidate at the University studying protein mutations and their impact on cancer development. Rodriguez expressed concern about attacks on scientific research in the U.S., which he called “scary.” He also spoke about the impact that cuts to NIH and National Science Foundation (NSF) funding would have on his lab.

“My laboratory is funded almost exclusively by NIH and NSF grants,” Rodriguez said. “We had a grant currently in the cycle that is now kind of undetermined if it will ever leave the sort of purgatory [caused by Trump administration actions]. Doing science is inherently expensive, so in order for us to continue doing our work, we need these funding opportunities to go through, and they’re just not.”

According to Rodriguez, the lab where he works will be in a position of “financial bankruptcy” if they do not receive the grant they applied for.

The Maroon also spoke to Tom White (J.D. ’84) and Lynn White, who attended the rally with their two grandchildren. While rally-goers began chants of “out of the lab, into the streets,” the White family stood on a median between the Plaza and South Dearborn Street, waving signs at cars that drove by. The signs read, “Donald Trump stop making bad choices” and “We Love Mother Earth.”

“We support science, and we also thought it would be a good experience for our five-year-old grandkids to learn about protest,” Tom White said. “We think it’s really important for the [Trump] administration to know that a large part of the public is very upset about what’s going on.”

slow down. Your mother’s cancer will wait for a cure. Your child’s genetic disorder will wait for a breakthrough,” Byrn said. “The research that can save lives may be delayed or may never come. So here’s where we need your help: as taxpayers, your voice, your vote, your advocacy will impact the future of scientific advancement.”

“Sometimes it’s hard to see the immediate payoff that comes from drug development in clinical trials,” she continued. “They take a long time, but when we receive a thank you note from the spouse of a patient, or we look in the eyes of a child who’s been cured because of a breakthrough therapy, the impact of clinical research is right in front of us, and it’s tangible, and this happens every day across our city and across the world.”

Melissa Byrn, assistant dean for clinical research at UChicago, speaks during the rally. nathaniel rodwell-simon

Allen-Waller underscored the damaging effects of funding freezes on research projects and emphasized the need for collective action.

funding for medical research is very basic. It comes down to six words that should be included in all of your conversations on the subject, and the six words are these: ‘Let me tell you a story,’” Durbin said.

“Tell a story about your research and the difference it makes in the lives of ordinary people. Tell your story about parents desperately waiting for that one word from a doctor, who says, ‘There is a cure. There’s research, a clinical trial you want your child to be in. We think it can help,’” he continued. “That kind of information gets down to the heart of the issue. We need to stand together for medical research.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) speaks during the rally. nathaniel rodwell-simon .

Following the rally, the Maroon spoke with several graduate students from the Biological Sciences Division (BSD), the University’s largest academic division. The BSD website now includes a conspicuous black and red text box directing researchers to the University’s “2025 Federal Administration Actions and Updates” page.

Organizers led the crowd in a series of chants: “When the NIH is under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!” Later, rally speakers included researchers from Illinois universities, a biotech startup founder who receives NIH funding for a skin sensor used to monitor chronic conditions, and a former NSF employee fired during one of the Trump administration’s recent mass layoffs.

Melissa Byrn, assistant dean for clinical research at UChicago, and Luella Allen-Waller, a postdoctoral fellow in UChicago’s Department of Ecology & Evolution, also spoke.

“Without [federal research] funding, breakthroughs in medical science will

“The White House’s severe new funding guidelines directly attack the work of me and my colleagues. Projects trying to identify strategies for resilience to climate change are now at risk, projects like indigenous land stewardship, things like protecting low-income communities that are at risk from pollution,” she said. “We love these things, and not only are they trying to defund this lifesaving science, now they want to censor the research outcomes too.

Is that what we do in a democratic society?”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vocal opponent of Trump, also spoke at the rally, emphasizing the importance of sharing the personal stories behind scientific and medical research.

“The key to this campaign to restore

Mira Nicole Antonopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in neurobiology, appreciated the University’s transparency in communication despite the frequent changes to federal policy.

“[The University doesn’t] know what’s gonna happen next, but they’ve been good about telling us, ‘We don’t know what’s going on,’ or ‘Now we know what’s going on; here’s some more information,’” Antonopoulos said. “They’ve been doing their best to analyze what’s happening in the moment and then communicate things with us, which is hard to do.”

By contrast, Luca Scharrer, a graduate student in the Department of Physics, believes the University has not shared enough information for him to determine whether they’ve responded appropriately to the

From left: Lynn White, Tom White (J.D. ’84), and their grandchildren, along with another individual, hold protest signs during the rally. nathaniel rodwell-simon .

“Our whole degrees, our future careers depend on being able to complete our experiments now.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 6

evolving situation.

“Besides an email from [University President Paul Alivisatos], I don’t know exactly what the University is doing. It feels like it’s all happening behind closed doors, and we don’t really know exactly what’s going on, and that’s kind of concerning. I would like to have a little more transpar-

ency, I guess,” he said.

While Alivisatos and University Provost Katherine Baicker have communicated with faculty and some researchers regarding the White House Office of Management and Budget’s brief freeze of federal grants and loans and the University’s lawsuit against the NIH to block cuts to indirect costs of research, neither email was shared

with the entire University community.

“Our whole degrees, our future careers depend on being able to complete our experiments now. So if the money goes away, then we kind of lose everything,” Antonopoulos said. “We’ve all been distressed about that.

And the uncertainty too; we don’t know next week if we’ll have money or not.”

Steven Wasserman, a Ph.D. candidate in

the biophysical sciences, expressed concern about the future of scientific research in the public sector.

“For those of us who want to stay doing public science, how much of an option is that? Once the cuts happen, how long will cuts last? What will be the consequences? What jobs will or won’t be available?” Wasserman said.

UCUP Rallies in Support of Palestinian Activist Detained by ICE

By NATHANIEL RODWELL-SIMON | Deputy News Editor

UChicago United for Palestine (UCUP), along with Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) and UChicago’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), held a rally on March 11 to show solidarity with Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers on March 8 despite his status as a lawful permanent resident.

During the rally on the main quad, organizers voiced concerns about what they perceive to be increasing collaboration between universities and the Trump administration in cracking down on pro-Palestine activism. Following the rally, demonstrators marched to the Quadrangle Club, where University President Paul Alivisatos and Provost Katherine Baicker were said to be eating lunch.

The demonstration comes as the Trump administration continues to fight campus pro-Palestine activism, which it considers antisemitic. On March 10, the Department of Education sent warning letters to 60 institutions of higher education currently under investigation for “antisemitic harassment or discrimination.” UChicago was not among the schools who received a letter.

Columbia has faced particularly intense pressure from the federal government over claims that it has not taken sufficient measures to combat antisemitism on its campus. On March 7, the Trump administration withdrew at least $400 million in federal funding from Columbia “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent

harassment of Jewish students,” according to a Department of Education press release.

“In the first 10 days of Ramadan, 6,000 miles [from Palestine], Columbia University’s autocratic rulers gave permission to the fascist Department of Homeland Security [DHS] to detain one of their students, Mahmoud Khalil, and tried to revoke his green card,” an organizer affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) said during the rally.

“This isn’t the first time in this country that mercy for Palestinians is criminalized, whether in the U.S. or by its universities, and it likely won’t be the last,” the organizer continued. “In fact, the war on terror’s criminalization of support for Palestine and the recent criminalization of organizations like Samidoun showed us that what’s happening to Mahmoud is part of a broad and long standing pattern of attacks, of arbitrary and political imprisonment.”

In a March 10 email, former interim Columbia President Katrina Armstrong denied allegations that the university requested ICE’s presence on its campus.

In a declaration filed in federal court on Monday, Amy Greer, Khalil’s lawyer, stated that a DHS agent told her that the U.S. State Department had revoked Khalil’s student visa. When Greer informed the agent that Khalil was a green card holder and not in the U.S. on a student visa, the agent told her that DHS had revoked the green card as well.

Khalil has since been transported to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana, accord-

Demonstrators holding a sign reading “Disclose, Divest, Repair” rally outside of the Quadrangle Club. nathaniel rodwell-simon .

ing to an agency database. On March 10, a federal district judge ordered that Khalil not be removed from the U.S. without the district court’s approval.

The DHS, which oversees ICE, did not respond to a request for comment.

In an interview, a White House official told the Free Press that Khalil was arrested on the grounds that he posed a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States,” despite no allegation that he broke any law.

Eman Abdelhadi, an assistant professor in the Department of Comparative Human Development and a member of FSJP, argued at the rally that the detention of a legal resident without charges is an indication that the Trump administration does not intend to follow the law when dealing

with protesters.

“Mahmoud Khalil has not been charged with a crime. I repeat, he has not been charged with a crime. Even according to the unjust system of laws that govern this country, Mahmoud Khalil is innocent,” Abdelhadi said. “Mahmoud Khalil is a political prisoner. Tyrant-king Trump is sending a message that we could all be political prisoners, that nothing can protect us if we dissent, not our legal statuses and not even the constitution of this land.”

“Our message to President Alivisatos and to Provost Baicker and to every University administrator is this: You thought you could save yourself from tyranny by offering your students up to donors and to tyrants as sacrificial lambs. But tyranny is

CONTINUED ON PG. 8

“Khalil was abducted by ICE because he spoke truth to power. His abduction is brazenly illegal, just like the eviction of two students from this University campus.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 7

greedy, and you will never satiate it by sacrificing your people,” she continued.

“They are still going to come for you. They want to destroy academia, they have said that all along,” Abdelhadi said. “They want to destroy one of the few hubs of dissent and debate in this country, and you opened the door to that destruction. You opened the door for them, not only to destroy universities, but to wipe the First Amendment off the books. You opened the door, but it’s not too late to shut it.”

Gabriel Winant, an associate professor of history and the president of AAUP UChicago, spoke after Abdelhadi, sharing a recent letter sent to University administrators and calling on the University to uphold academic freedom and limit its participation in potential federal law enforcement actions.

“Yesterday, the Department of Education put out a list of [60] universities it’s intending to investigate for antisemitism. The University of Chicago is not on that list, and I’m sure in Levi Hall they breathed a sigh of relief. ‘Oh, good. We’ve kept our heads down. It’s worked. Let’s keep doing that,’” Winant said. “[The Education Department]

didn’t say they’re done at [60]. Imagine that freedom of expression will just survive here on this little island in that kind of context. It’s completely preposterous.”

“Our University has the opportunity now to promise—as we’ve recently asked in an open letter from AAUP which could all go look at and sign—that it will not go above and beyond the requirements of the law in cooperating with federal authorities,” he continued. “That is the only path by which they can continue to protect the values that they purport to cherish and defend on this campus—academic freedom and freedom of expression. If they fail to do that, then there’s no reason for us to take seriously anything else they have to say on the topic in the future at any point.”

In a statement to the Maroon on March 24, the University shared its practices surrounding interactions with federal law enforcement and the handling of student and faculty information related to immigration status. A longer version of the statement was also published by UChicago News in response to the AAUP letter.

“The University has clear policies in place that govern how we operate in these areas, including protections for student and

employee information under FERPA. The University does not monitor or report on the activities of students, faculty, or staff based on immigration status, except as required by law,” the statement read. “The University of Chicago Police Department does not engage in immigration enforcement work and does not release information on immigration status to law enforcement agencies unless legally required to do so.”

The University did not respond to a specific question about whether it had received any communications related to the “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” executive order.

After being informed by a rally organizer that Alivisatos and Baicker were at the Quadrangle Club “having a party,” the group marched east on the quad toward South University Avenue. Abdelhadi continued to lead the crowd in chants as they marched.

While demonstrators gathered on the sidewalk in front of the Quadrangle Club, the building’s doors were locked remotely. The Maroon witnessed the ID card reader that controls access to the building switch from green to red.

Outside of the Quadrangle Club, Ania Aizman, an assistant professor in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures and a member of UChicago Jews for a Free Palestine, spoke about the need for activists to continue speaking out against the Trump administration and the Israel–Hamas war.

“Khalil was abducted by ICE because he spoke truth to power. His abduction is brazenly illegal, just like the eviction of two students from this University campus— Mamayan and Student A—both of those were also illegal, violating any law [or] due process on this campus,” Aizman said.

“But none of that matters, and the law doesn’t matter, if enough of us are scared,” she continued. “They are counting on us to fall silent so that the regime of lies can prevail.”

As the demonstration concluded, protesters wrote the names of political prisoners in chalk on the sidewalk and steps surrounding the building “to continue in the practice of organizations like Samidoun… and to stand up for Mamayan and Student A.”

UCUP and FSJP did not respond to requests for comment.

Uncommon Interview: Venticinque Reflects on First Year as Dean of Students

By OLIVER BUNTIN | Senior News Reporter

Dean of Students in the College Philip Venticinque (A.B. ’01, A.M. ’02, Ph.D. ’09) sat down with the Maroon to discuss his first year in the office, current initiatives, and aspiration to be a “dean for students.”

Venticinque began his tenure as dean of students in early 2024, transitioning from his previous position in the Office of the Provost, where he had served since 2018. He came to UChicago after teaching at Cornell College, where he served as an associate professor of Classics.

The following interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Chicago Maroon (CM): How has the past year been?

Philip Venticinque (PV): It’s been really great and exciting. It has been a really busy year of meeting with students, working across the College, identifying priorities, and really thinking strategically about [how to be a] dean for students, not just the dean of students. And we spent a lot of time reflecting on that this year. What would that mean? Sometimes at college, it’s easy to be reactive. And I was hoping that we would all find ways to be more proactive, working more to meet students where they are and where they

need us to be.

I think we’ve made really, really positive steps [with] things like the care team. So we’ve established a care and support team for the first time here at the College in a real, intentional way. It’s a group of now five members of the Dean of Students Office focused on retention, persistence, and coordinated student care across the College and across the University. I think [it] has increased our toolbox in the ways that we’re approaching and working with students.

We [also] spent a lot of time thinking through [academic] advising. In that sense, we’ve also been really successful with onboarding and retaining folks at that office.

Now, the advising loads are more like 280 to 290 [students] per advisor, which is a big difference from last year. We have even more jobs posted now, and I’m hoping that by the end of the academic year… we can bring that down to about 240 to make it more manageable for advisors and their caseloads and working with individual students. [What] we’re trying to do now is give the advisors a chance to focus on advising.

CM: How have your interactions with graduate and undergraduate students informed your priorities over the past year?

PV: I think it undoubtedly has shaped some of the priorities…. I can’t stop, in

CONTINUED ON PG. 9

“The mission, the vision, [is] to champion your success, make sure that you’re positioned to succeed. That is not changing.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 8

some sense, being the liberal arts college professor that taught Latin and Greek and ancient history and things at a liberal arts college in Iowa. And that’s my background here [both] as a graduate student and as an undergraduate, and so I’m very much focused on working with students, focused on student success in and out of the classroom.

But one of the other things I think that’s informed [me] is some of those conversations that I said I’ve been having regularly with students because, quite frankly, I know things are not the same as they were 25 years ago. And I’m looking for ideas and real critical thoughts and assessments. And I’ve gotten that from groups like Maroon Key Society. I’ve gotten that from Student Government. I’ve gotten that from various advisory boards. I’ve been talking with veteran scholars, groups of transfer students, study breaks, RAs, and just students who come to my office hours.

CM: Were there any particularly memorable interactions?

PV: When I first arrived, there were many conversations I was having with students that were focused on advising and focused on access to their advisor. What did that relationship look like? What are the outcomes?

So some of those conversations and just hearing about what those experiences were, both from the students and then listening to the advisors themselves talk about how they wanted to be interacting with students, how they wanted to forge better relationships and connections with students, how many of them who have subject area expertise wanted to do more of that right, and that, I think, started to help inform some of the things we were talking about working with the team.

What if we do go back and start thinking about that liaison model? What if people do start working more closely with, say, the math department and the stats department? What if we start finding these ways where subject area, advising expertise, and academic expertise with directors of undergraduate studies can be brought together? So I can think of a lot of those early conversations about advising… informed

and continue to inform some of what we’re trying to do in advising and thinking about the organization.

CM: What would you consider the most significant ways the student experience has changed since you were an undergraduate?

PV: I think… it’s easy to say it’s bigger, right? Everyone just sort of points that [out]. But I like to say there’s a richness, I think that has changed for the better…. The rigor of the academic experience, I think that remains the same. The change, I think, is [in] the variety, the breadth and depth [of] the course offerings in academic programs.

Going back to the ’90s, there were 30 or 40 majors. I think we just approved our [54th] or something like that. So there’s just a variety of options for our students to engage in different ways here at the College, [but] I think many of the core values remain the same.

CM: Are there any areas where you’re hoping to engage the community in the coming months?

PV: I am hoping that we can continue going from strength to strength. We have been fortunate to get many jobs posted. We’re still hiring and advising. We’re hiring at the care team…. We’re building things out in academic and student services. I’m hoping that we’re going to continue working in those directions. I am hoping in the next year [we’ll be] able to work closely with Campus and Student Life and Housing and Residence Life, thinking about ways to work better together and bring some of the College into housing [and] have that synergy.

I think there’s potential for thinking about different ways where we could work across resident heads, resident deans, and programming between the College and those groups in new ways, but that’s a multiyear thing. I think it’s such a foundational piece of the student experience. And you know, I’m always saying, part of what we try to do over here is meet students where they are and where they need us to be. And I always say, you’re only in class three or four hours a day. There’s a whole other part of the day where we’re trying to impact and help students find

the success that they want. I think partnerships with housing residents [can be] a big part of that.

CM: In recent years, the University has racked up some very substantial deficits. We saw new restrictions on research funding on top of various threats that the Trump administration has made to scientific grants. What’s your approach to protecting the student experience in this more resource-scarce environment?

PV: That’s an excellent question, I’ve gotten that [at a] few other places, [including] a study break not too long ago, and I try to say what I can control and what we try to do around here is [facilitating] student success and the student experience. Every day we wake up over here, the folks in the Dean of Students Office and across the College are motivated and focused… solely on finding ways to impact student success…. And so, while there might be some constraints and contexts that are changing… the focus on students remains the same. The mission, the vision, [is] to champion your success, make sure that you’re positioned to succeed. That is not changing.

CM: I know your academic background is in the Classics. Obviously, a large portion of undergraduates these days are taking economics. And the University seems to be concentrating a lot of its resources in STEM areas like the new climate and quantum initiatives. Are you thinking about ways to encourage students to pursue the humanities and make sure those departments aren’t starved of resources?

PV: What we’re trying to do is work closely with the collegiate divisions and think about ways to shore up connections, like I said, between advising and academic departments. And think about what those advising and academic relationships could be.

You’re right. There are lots of students that are economic majors…. My own research… is [the] social and economic history of the ancient world. So I’m kind of a tweener, and I think one of the things I talk a lot about with students is the potential to harness… interdisciplinary connections to think about places where, say, Classics and economics actually overlap.

So I think if there’s anything that we could be doing more proactively or that I can ask advising or I can ask those of us [in] collegiate divisions, I think those are some of the things we could think about differently and promote in our own interactions with students.

CM: Could these efforts involve helping professors design more interdisciplinary classes, encouraging more double majors, or something else?

PV: Building classes and curricular things are going to live outside of this part of the College, but we can work closely with our academic partners who are designing these programs and the new majors that I mentioned.

We’re also in the process of hiring and identifying, for lack of a better word, what I’m calling “academic specialists,” sort of learning specialists. It’ll be part of the Dean of Students Office. It’ll be a different way, sort of an academic counterpart to the care and support team, where we have people working with individual students in sort of an academic way.

I’m hoping—and again, this will take some time—to develop resources, group advising, workshops, [and other] different varieties of learning support and academic support for students. Some of this, like going back to your curricular questions, some of this can and probably will start taking place in advising as we lean more into this liaison model, where we’re working closely with the masters in the collegiate divisions and thinking about what particular approaches to advising in certain fields or groups of fields might look like. So I think we’re moving in that direction, and it’s something I’d like us to think more strategically about.

CM: Finally, are there any things around campus you’re particularly looking forward to in the coming months?

PV: I feel like I’m [going to] say the same thing I said last year, but spring is so fun around campus. I mean, there are just so many things going on, all the signature events: the senior prom, senior week back at The Shedd… Summer Breeze—all the good stuff that happens on campus and in the spring. But also, I just look forward to a Wednesday Shake Day, too.

Editor’s Note

The University of Chicago has a long and contentious history of student protest. At various points, protests have been significant enough to prompt the University to reconsider its disciplinary policies for dealing with disruptive conduct.

We are again in such a position. The University tasked a faculty committee with revising the current disciplinary system last December. In a January 30 email communicating the committee, Universi-

“Choosing

ty Provost Katherine Baicker wrote that a “number of incidents during the academic year 2023–2024 put [the current disciplinary] system to the test,” prompting the University to reevaluate its system and consider alternatives to it.

The year 2024 saw a nine-day pro-Palestine encampment from April 29 to May 7, a May 17 occupation of the Institute of Politics building, and an October 11 protest that resulted in the arrest of at least three students.

With the current disciplinary system in transition, the Maroon is working to compile a history of protest and discipline on campus beginning with Vietnam War protests in 1967 and concluding in the present day. The Maroon spoke to previously expelled or suspended students, members of UChicago’s disciplinary committees, and former University administrators.

This series highlights significant mo-

ments in the University’s history of disruption and discipline—those that led to major change and those that are remarkable because they did not.

This article is an excerpt from the first in a three-part series. Articles will cover 1967–74, 2013–20, and 2023 to the present day.

— The Chicago Maroon Investigations Team

to Govern Itself”: How the Protests of 1969 Shaped UChicago’s Disciplinary System

As Vietnam War protests raged on campus during the late 1960s, University administrators constructed a new program of discipline that avoided involving Chicago police or the courts.

By ELENA EISENSTADT | Deputy Editor-in-Chief, NATHANIEL RODWELL-SIMON | Deputy News Editor, and ZACHARY LEITER | Senior News Reporter

Introduction

From 1967 to 1970, thousands of UChicago students protested against a university they saw as “a bastion of corporate capitalism.” A two-week-long sitin of the administration building in 1969 remains the most consequential protest in the University’s history. The University deemed that protest and many others disruptive, expelling 42 students and suspending more than 200 others.

As individual cases played out over almost a decade, UChicago administrators and several faculty committees crafted the All-University Disciplinary System, driven by a desire to preserve the University’s “special character” as an institution set apart from society.

Though the University has seldom

used that system in the 40 years since its creation, debates that began in the ’60s and ’70s shaped the University’s disciplinary process and continue to inform the administration’s response to present-day protests.

The Two-Week Sit-in

Early in 1969, a two-week sit-in of the University’s administration building led to the creation of two special disciplinary committees and the expulsion of 42 students. Protests over those expulsions carried into the fall, forcing UChicago to formalize its disciplinary system for handling “disruptive conduct.”

The Case of Marlene Dixon

In January 1969, at the height of the

Vietnam War, the University Committee on Human Development chose not to reappoint assistant professor of sociology Marlene Dixon to UChicago’s faculty. Dixon was an outspoken opponent of the war and a proponent of the women’s liberation movement.

As the Maroon wrote on the occasion of Dixon’s denial, “she has made no secret of her new left political persuasion.”

The dismissal sparked the fiercest student-administration confrontation in the University’s history. Less than a week later, 75 students began protesting Dixon’s removal and sent a letter to the Maroon arguing that the University’s decision had been motivated by politics, sexism, and Dixon’s recent protest of Edward Levi’s appointment as University president.

Two weeks later, with little consensus between students and administration on Dixon’s situation, 85 students held a sit-in of the social sciences building on January 27. During the sit-in, administrators passed out notices informing participants that they were engaged in a “disruptive” action that was in “interference with the normal functioning of the

Marlene Dixon, whose denial of reappointment sparked a two-week sit-in in 1969. chicago maroon photographic archive.

“Marlene was really just the hook... We were very upset about the strategic hamlet nature of [the University in] Hyde Park.”

University.” Disciplinary measures could follow, the notice said.

On January 29, students formed the Committee of 444 and voted to sanction an occupation of the administration building.

“Any student who takes part in such activities in any University building will be subject to disciplinary measures, not excluding expulsion,” Dean of Students Charles O’Connell informed undergraduates in a notice sent following the vote.

On January 30, approximately 400 students seized the administration building. The University had not locked the building, and the students’ entrance was largely unimpeded. The philosophy of the sit-in was, according to the Committee of 444, one of “nonviolent disruption.”

The Committee’s demands included the immediate rehiring of Dixon, “acceptance in principle of equal student participation in faculty hiring and firing,” and “unconditional amnesty for demonstrating students.”

The University convened a faculty committee to review the denial of Dixon’s reappointment, chaired by professor Hanna Holborn Gray, who would later serve as University president from 1978 to 1993. The Gray Committee determined that Dixon’s sex and political ideology had not played a role in the consideration of her reappointment.

However, multiple sit-in participants told the Maroon in 2025 that the protest was only partially about Dixon.

“Marlene was really just the hook,” then first-year student protester Atina Grossmann told the Maroon in 2025.

“We were upset about the draft, about the [Vietnam] war, [about police brutality]. We were very upset about the strategic hamlet nature of [the University in] Hyde Park.… [The denial of tenure to] Marlene catalyzed a whole broader sense of discomfort.”

“It was about the University’s complicity in ‘urban renewal,’ which [meant] essentially Black people removal,” one sit-in participant who preferred to remain anonymous told the Maroon in 2025. “The life of the mind proved to be the life of the very white, male, Cartesian mind.”

Miles Mogulescu—then a fourth-year student, a member of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and a student leader of the sit-in steering committee—told the Maroon in 2025 that the protest was also a rebuttal to UChicago’s participation in the military-industrial complex.

“UChicago was ostensibly liberal, but in effect was a bastion of corporate capitalism,” Mogulescu said.

Sit-in participants passed around a petition to mockingly rename the administration building to the “Imperial State Building.”

The University Refuses to Negotiate

In a public statement two days into the occupation, the Committee of the Council—a six-person advisory body on the University’s Faculty Senate—declared the University’s unwillingness to negotiate.

“[The Committee] insists on the distinction between free and open discussion, on the one hand and on the other, ‘bargaining,’ conducted under coercive, threatening, or disorderly circumstances,” it wrote. “The Committee will not engage in the latter kind of discourse.”

As a result, just two days after the sit-in began, the University initiated disciplinary proceedings against more than 100 of the students occupying the administration building.

pants that their “name [was] being given to a University Disciplinary Committee.” Protesters were instructed to appear for an initial hearing within an hour and informed that failure to abide by the warning would be grounds for additional discipline.

When administrators attempted to deliver those letters to participating students, protesters burned the papers and said, “Eat them.”

According to Mogulescu, UChicago “had professors wander through the buildings and write down the names of anyone who was protesting… Even the so-called liberal professors became, in our minds, collaborators with the University.”

“Students refused to cooperate with the disciplinary body and continued to refuse, even years later,” Gray told the Maroon in 2025.

The First Suspensions

After many students failed to attend their initial disciplinary hearings, the University suspended 61 protesters who had ignored summons and remained inside the administration building, pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

“Throughout the period of their suspension,” O’Connell wrote in a statement at the time, “these persons are not entitled to any of the rights and privileges of University of Chicago students.”

According to the Maroon ’s coverage at the time, the sentiment of many students was: “We don’t recognize the suspensions any more than we recognize the disciplinary committee.”

All suspended students who had been employed in University jobs were soon fired, though their firing was not disclosed publicly for more than two weeks. When asked why the University made the decision to fire suspended students privately, O’Connell told the Maroon at the time that the University had very little experience dealing with suspensions prior to 1969.

CONTINUED FROM PG. 10 CONTINUED

Summonses were delivered verbally and through letters informing partici-

time that “expulsion from the residence halls is common procedure in all suspension cases.”

The Oaks Committee

A nine-member University Disciplinary Committee chaired by UChicago Law profes sor Dallin Oaks was soon created to try s tudents engaged in disruptive conduct.

University administrators said they had decided to suspend students “to see if the University’s own disciplinary procedures could be used to deal with this problem,” per the Maroon

In choosing to discipline students i nternally rather than having them arrested, Dean of the College Wayne c. Booth believed that UChicago’s administration successfully preserved “the special character of [the] University.” The alternative, which Levi and other administrators opposed, was to rely on the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and the legal system.

The University also removed all suspended students from on-campus housing. O’Connell told the Maroon at the

Dean of Students Charles O’Connell in an undated photograph. chicago maroon photographic archive

Dallin Oaks speaks to his committee about what disciplinary actions they should take against the sit-in participants. chicago maroon photographic archive

Dean of the College Wayne c. Booth during the 1969 sit-in. chicago maroon photographic archive.

“It was the view here that amnesty was not appropriate... and that people were accountable and... prepared for the consequences that might follow.”

The Oaks Committee initially voted to close the trials to other students, faculty, and press, though four student observers were also appointed to the committee as non-voting members.

Those observers put out a statement saying they “[did] not believe that their participation in the business of the committee, as non-voting members, necessarily implies any opinion about the legitimacy of this committee one way or the other.”

A few weeks later, three of the four observers resigned from their positions in protest of the Oaks Committee’s perceived faculty-student imbalance.

Through its actions, the Oaks Committee asserted its independence from University administration by granting a motion to require the dean of students to defend his decision to declare the sit-in disruptive. O’Connell sent a statement to the Committee but declined to appear in person.

When one protester stated in an open hearing before the Oaks Committee that he did not recognize the body’s legitimacy, Oaks responded that the Committee had already ruled to consider itself legitimate.

In the days following the students’ suspensions, several ad hoc student and faculty bodies expressed their support for pausing disciplinary proceedings until the sit-in had concluded or the proceedings had been reconstituted “in light of due process and student participation,” per the Maroon ’s reporting at the time.

One hundred and fifty UChicago Law School faculty members signed a petition stating that the disciplinary process denied students “the right to effective counsel,” “the right to a public hearing,” and knowledge of “the range of sanctions available.”

In several of the students’ trials, the Committee granted motions for a public hearing and for a bill of particulars—a list of the charges against individual students—though they rejected motions to dismiss on the grounds of vague charges, lack of jurisdiction, and hearsay evidence.

Questions directed at students during the Oaks Committee’s hearings included, “Do you believe that you have the right to use civil disobedience against the University?” and “Couldn’t you have stayed outside the [administration] building to make your point?”

Opposition to Amnesty

In an op-ed published in the Maroon, Milton Friedman, then the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor of Economics and an advisor to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan, asked that protesters not be granted amnesty.

To condone the sit-in participants’ tactics through amnesty, he wrote, would be “to cooperate willingly in the destruction of the very foundations of our great university.”

Dean of Rockefeller Chapel E. Spencer Parsons and other campus religious leaders also opposed amnesty, writing to Levi that “the demand for amnesty indicates a lack of moral seriousness about the relationship between acts and their consequences.”

Gray told the Maroon in 2025 that, although other institutions who had experienced similar unrest offered amnesty to protesters, UChicago’s administration decided to take a very different approach.

“It was the view here that amnesty was not appropriate, that civil disobedience involved taking that risk, and that people were accountable and were prepared for the consequences that might follow,” Gray said.

“Chicago differed from a great many of its peer institutions in that it followed its basic ways,” she continued. “It didn’t postpone exams [or] tell people they didn’t have to take them. It didn’t give amnesty on the grounds that this was a kind of enterprise, a kind of occasion on which a lot of people were involved with the best of intentions, but with a way of expressing those [intentions] which the [University] considered subject to disciplinary procedures.”

The disciplinary proceedings “alienated many people and were supported by many others,” Gray said.

A contemporaneous survey conducted by the Maroon and the UChicago-affiliated National Opinion Research Council found that 58.3 percent of roughly 700 undergraduate and graduate students surveyed supported total amnesty for the protesters, while 33.2 percent of students opposed amnesty.

The Sit-In Ends

After more than two weeks, the sit-in ended peacefully on February 14 when an overwhelming majority of remaining protesters voted to leave the administration building.

They left behind scattered chairs and papers, shredded wires, and graffiti that read (retaining original formatting) “Student Power Grows out of the Barrel of a Gun” and “in revolution one wins or dies… win.”

The sit-in cost the University around $250,000 (roughly $2 million when adjusted for inflation) in damages, security expenses, and lost work, per a confidential University financial statement.

Mogulescu called Levi’s management of the sit-in “quite brilliant and effective.” Just a few months earlier, protests at Columbia, Berkeley, and San Francisco State University had been put down by police and national guard involvement. At Columbia, over 1,000 cops arrested more than 700 protesters and injured more than 100 during a violent bust.

The year before, Chicago Police Department (CPD) officers had beaten and pepper sprayed thousands of anti-war protesters outside the Democratic National Convention in an infamous incident that an Illinois state investigation later called a “police riot.”

“We were very much in the shadow of Columbia in ’68 and the Chicago Convention,” Grossmann told the Maroon in 2025. “Everyone was thinking maybe there would be a repeat performance, that the Chicago Police Department would come in and do something terrible.”

“Levi just let the students sit in as long as they wanted to, and he refused to negotiate,” Mogulescu said. “At the beginning, the sit-in was invigorating—to be with 400 of your fellow students who mostly shared a political and cultural view—but as it wore on and the University refused

ON PG. 13

Students leave the administration building after a 16-day-long sit-in. chicago maroon photographic archive

Following the sit-in, University photographers went through the administration building to document the damage. courtesy of the university of chicago photographic archive

Graffiti reading “Student Power Grows out of the Barrel of a Gun” left inside the administration building during the sit-in. courtesy of the university of chicago photographic archive.

“The belief among protesters... was that being subject to disciplinary action was part of the process of protest.”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 12

to negotiate… we got tired of eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.”

At the time, not all viewed the University president quite so favorably. “Your appeasement… has been outrageous,” one angry parent wrote in a letter to Levi. “Idiots like you are what made a Hitler possible.”

Levi himself was unsure whether he’d plotted the right course forward. “I don’t know whether we have been right or wrong,” he wrote to a University trustee at the time. “But we have been trying to find a way and be true to the ideals of our University.”

Students March on Levi’s House

After the sit-in concluded, Gray said, “the real conflict on campus began”: the conflict over discipline.

The same day the sit-in ended, O’Connell issued 22 additional suspensions of protestors following a report by the Oaks Committee.

One week later, the Committee came to a final decision in the cases of 31 of the 126 student protesters who had been summoned to appear before the body. Disciplinary action was recommended in every case, though none of the students were expelled. Most students were placed on probation or suspended for up to two terms.

As the Maroon reported at the time, the Oaks Committee informed one student that he would not be allowed to withdraw from the University as part of his interim suspension. The student subsequently told the Maroon, “I was planning to withdraw from the University as a protest, but if they want to use the place for a prison, I’m happy to stay here and try to learn something.”

As February continued, a petition circulated among more than 400 protesters calling for them all to stand trial collectively rather than individually before the Oaks Committee. The belief among protesters, as reported in the Maroon, was that being subject to disciplinary action was part of the process of protest.

When 50 protesters sent a letter to the Oaks Committee demanding the op -

portunity to present a collective defense, they were denied; the students stated that they would make the demand once more, this time in person. If denied a second time, they would all refuse to appear before the Committee and would—in effect—be expelled.

On February 24, almost 100 students gathered outside Levi’s house to protest for collective defense, then marched on the Quadrangle Club, where “they taunted guests who were eating, took food and wine from the tables, cursed various faculty members in the room, and held mock meetings,” according to an account by historian of the University and former Dean of the College John Boyer.

O’Connell told the Maroon at the time that the February 24 protest was “the most mindless, the most senseless, and the most child-like behavior” he had ever seen on campus. A second committee for disruptive conduct was convened, chaired by associate professor of social service administration Charles Shireman.

In a letter to Levi written after the administration building sit-in concluded, Philip Hauser, a professor in the department of sociology, wrote, “We as a University, and higher education in general, will be committing suicide if we are not prepared to meet the persistent use of force with overwhelming superior force.”

Hauser wrote that if protests continued, the University should call in a police force large enough that “bodies can literally be carted away without skulls cracked,” along with the summary expulsion of protesters.

The Kalven Report on Discipline

The 1969 disciplinary hearings played out against the release of the Kalven Committee “Report on Disciplinary Procedures,” which the Kalven Committee on Discipline had begun developing in 1967 as a general response to Vietnam War protests but which was finalized in the commotion of the 1969 administration building sit-in.

The nine-person Committee on Discipline was chaired by Harry Kalven Jr., who also chaired the separate Committee on the Role of the University in Social and Political Action. That committee authored the “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.”

In its “Report on Disciplinary Procedures,” the Kalven Committee on Discipline justified the existence of an extralegal University disciplinary system for disruptive conduct as being essential “to protect the integrity of the [University’s] enterprise.”

“The tradition of civil disobedience since Socrates has always involved a willingness to accept the punishment, and its moral force as an appeal to the conscience of the community has stemmed from this fact,” the Committee wrote.

The Kalven Committee recommended that disciplinary infractions be sorted into two categories: “offenses against the mission of the University,” which included disruptive actions taken “in an effort to coerce University decisions,” and “offenses against University life,” including infractions involving sex, alcohol, and drugs.

“If we may indulge in exaggeration to emphasize the distinction we are struggling for,” the Committee wrote, “the first category of offenses might be assimilated to ‘treason,’ the second to ‘nuisance.’”

Several aspects of the Kalven Committee’s proposed system ran contrary to the guidelines on university discipline put forth by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1968. The AAUP recommended that hearing committees have voting student members and that interim suspensions not be given pending the resolution of disciplinary proceedings.

The Kalven Committee’s system, by contrast, gave the dean of students “single and final power” with regard to appeals of offense against the University’s mission. However, the dean would have no power to “enlarge or make harsher any initial disciplinary judgement.”

The University Expels 42 Students

On March 4, the University expelled 10 students to swift and strong reactions from the student body.

More than 500 protesters marched on Abbott Memorial Hall, where the Oaks Committee was meeting, to demand that the expulsions be rescinded.

Protests against the Oaks and Shireman Committees continued over the next month, becoming significantly more aggressive and sometimes escalating to rock throwing and window breaking. Committee meetings frequently proceeded only after security guards had carried protesters out of the room.

Students march on the Quadrangle Club to protest the University’s disciplinary actions following the sit-in. chicago maroon photographic archive

Students and faculty exit the Quadrangle Club following the protest. chicago maroon photographic archive.

maroon reporter Leslie Strauss speaks to Oaks during a committee hearing. chicago maroon photographic archive.

“You were either going to plead ignorant or... regretful and I didn’t want to be in that position. So I think I just boycotted the [disciplinary hearings].”

CONTINUED FROM PG. 13

On April 1, the two disciplinary committees finally completed the task set before them. Of the 164 students who had been summoned to appear for their participation in the protests starting with the administration building sit-in, 37 were expelled and 62 were suspended. Five of the suspended students were later also expelled following review of their suspensions, bringing the total of expulsions to 42.

In thank-you letters to Oaks and Shireman Committee members, Levi wrote that the committees’ task had been “arduous, harrowing, onerous, [and] heartrending.”

“Unfortunately it is a comment on our times that those who are most committed to education and to the interests of the students must give of themselves in this way,” Levi wrote to Shireman. “There has been no task of greater importance to education.”

“Thirty-seven expulsions at the UC are more than all those at Berkeley, Columbia, and San Francisco State combined. It seems that the University overreacted just a little to a non-violent, non-successful sit-in,” a student placed on probation by the Oaks Committee told the Maroon at the time.

One expelled student told the Maroon in 2025 that her expulsion from the University came as something of a welcome shock.

“I remember feeling like a lost lamb [at UChicago],” she said. “I was just learning about the world. I was in SDS, but my father had been a Republican. This was all completely new to me. And at some

point later we all just went, ‘Well, we got expelled. Whatever.’”

When it came to the disciplinary proceedings, she said, “You were either going to plead ignorant or [plead] regretful and I didn’t want to be in that position. So I think I just boycotted the [disciplinary hearings]. I thought, ‘It’s about time to leave [UChicago].’”

She said that, though she has returned to Chicago frequently in the 55 years since, she returned to campus only once because “the whole thing gives me the creeps.”

Grossmann told the Maroon in 2025 that the Oaks Committee offered her the option of “repenting” and told her that, if she repented, she would only be suspended. She did not repent and was expelled.

Grossmann said she was sad to miss out on UChicago’s intellectual experience. However, “It just seemed like there was something wrong with the life of the mind at UChicago. There was quite frankly a part of me that was relieved to be able to escape some of that creepiness,” she said.

Despite his leading role in the sit-in, Mogulescu was not among the students expelled—contrary to Maroon reporting at the time. Instead, he was suspended indefinitely. He attributes the administration’s relative leniency to two factors. First, Mogulescu opposed a faction of protesters who, as sit-in participants left the administration building, argued for rifling through administrative files and destroying equipment. Second, Mogulescu needed only a few more credits to graduate.

Two and a half years after suspending him, the University allowed Mogulescu to complete his studies so long as he did not return to campus. He enrolled in two classes remotely and mailed his essays to Hyde Park. In exchange, the University mailed him a diploma.

Protests Continue

The 42 expulsions and 62 suspensions did not conclude 1969’s protest saga.

A five-day “non-militant picketing” of Cobb Hall led by members of the Committee of 444—the student organization

that had led the occupation of the administration building in January—was largely successful in getting students to skip classes in the building.

The protest was not, however, successful in achieving the demand that “all disciplinary actions be rescinded.”

A brief retaking of the administration building by a dozen expelled students calling themselves the “Salvation Air Force” was similarly unsuccessful.

As the month wore on, students sought new ways to shift the University’s position. On April 15, 23 students began a quad tent-in and hunger strike to rescind disciplinary actions.

“It’s surprising how long people can last on orange juice, water, and a vitamin pill a day,” remarked hunger striker Sue Loth to press at the time.

Edward Rosenheim, spokesman for the University Committee of the Council, told the Maroon at the time, “I wish to gosh they’d eat something.… This clearly does not involve persuasion or reasoning on any acceptable level of rational discussion. It does not affect the character of my deliberations.”

On April 18, the University reduced three students’ expulsions to indefinite suspensions and reduced the lengths of 28 students’ suspensions.

With the hunger strike stretching into a seventh day, 30 students planted white crosses in the grass outside the administration building in continued protest of the Oaks and Shireman Committees’ perceived illegitimacy.

“The crosses we have placed on the quadrangle,” the group said in a statement, “express the significant loss we as students feel and which the University as a whole has suffered by the expulsion of 42 students.”

Protesters planted 42 white crosses on the quad to memorialize the expelled students. chicago maroon photographic archive.

Two days later, the hunger strike concluded with soup, hors d’oeuvres, sherry, and tea.

“How can we refuse to eat when apparently still half the University needs to be brought up to date on the issues that have been plaguing it for two months,”

CONTINUED ON PG. 15

The maroon ‘s front page on April 11, 1969.

A maroon article from March 7, 1969 addresses disruptions during Shireman Committee hearings.

A reporter interviews hunger strikers on the quad. chicago maroon photographic archive.

The succession of protests had brought national attention to Hyde Park. Letters flooded in from parents, alumni, and faculty at other universities.

CONTINUED FROM PG. 14

the strikers wrote in the statement suspending their protest.

The Nation Watches UChicago

The result of the spring’s events, Booth said on April 25, was “an unprecedented breakdown of trust” in the University.

The succession of protests had brought national attention to Hyde Park. Letters flooded in from parents, alumni, and faculty at other universities.

Hannah Arendt, renowned political theorist and former UChicago professor, wrote to Levi to tell him how she missed Chicago and “admired [his] handling of the student difficulties.”

Pete Seeger, the famed folk singer and social activist, wrote Levi to ask him to overturn students’ expulsions.

“I have long been a fan of your music,” Special Assistant to then-President Henry Field responded.

Field was less kind in his responses to others. To one concerned alum, he wrote, “If fascism should ever come to this country, it won’t be because of carefully measured discipline by faculty discipline committees but because of people such as yourself who are incompetent to distinguish the boundary line between freedom and coercion.”

Booth, too, defended the Oaks and Shireman Committees’ decisions, which he said had the full support of the University administration. He noted, however, that he saw “no reason in principle why students shouldn’t be on all disciplinary committees, if and when they are ready to accept the responsibility.”

The Committee of 500+ Against Disciplinary Procedures (formerly the Committee of 444) wrote in a pamphlet that disciplinary proceedings had been discriminatory in their “irrational harshness” and a “political inquisition.”

In an April 8 letter reporting the decisions of the Shireman and Oaks Committees, O’Connell stated that punishments were determined in part based on “the nature of the student’s response to the summons” to appear in front of a committee.

Other factors taken into account included whether the student “sought to communicate realistically with the committee,” whether the student would admit that their behavior was “inappropriate to a University community,” and whether the student had demonstrated capacity for “positive citizenship” within the University.

Throughout the rest of the school year, students and faculty continued to stage sit-ins and protests, demanding the University reform its disciplinary system. Those efforts produced little institutional change, but did lead to disciplinary consequences for the participants and the hospitalization of professor and activist Richard Flacks.

The Assault on Flacks

Flacks, an assistant professor in the department of sociology and a founder of SDS, was an outspoken critic of Levi. In response to a 1968 dinner honoring Levi’s inauguration as president of the University, Flacks wrote a letter condemning the event and its guests, which included then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and McGeorge Bundy, President Lyndon Johnson’s national security advisor and an architect of the Vietnam War.

During the 1969 protests, Flacks and fellow professor Richard Levins accused the University of engaging in a purge of left-wing students, an action taken by one “estate” of the University against another, according to Levins. At the same rally, Mogulescu commented that “[faculty] should be glad we’re still talking and not shooting.”

Flacks’s activism at UChicago would continue for another week before an assailant posing as a journalist visited his office for an interview and proceeded to beat him nearly to death with an unknown object. Flacks suffered two skull fractures and nearly lost the use of his right hand.

Less than three hours before the attack, Flacks had attended a silent vigil protesting the University’s recent disciplinary actions.

To date, the assailant responsible for the attack is still unknown.

ness by the administration to Student Government concerns and annoyance that “political” work was taking up the vast majority of his time. In his resignation letter, Barnett called for Levi and other University administrators to also resign.

New information surrounding Flacks’s assault came to light in 1975, when Levi joined the administration of Nixon’s vice president and successor, President Gerald Ford, as attorney general. That year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence learned through Levi that the FBI had sent letters to members of UChicago’s Board of Trustees in 1968 attempting to discredit Flacks and have him fired.

“We can not continue to tolerate decision-making in secret, closed meetings,” Barnett wrote in the Maroon “It is wrong in any community. It is an abomination in an academic community. It can only lead to a sterile, decaying institution.”

“Last year’s discipliners were smart. They went easy on those who would (unhappily) tolerate illegitimate procedures; they expelled those who would not tolerate them,” Barnett continued. “But now that we are faced again with illegitimate discipline we must resist. Those who fail to resist violence, are violent.”

Asked why he thought the University took such a strong stance against protesters in 1969, after permitting sit-ins in previous years, Mogulescu was blunt: “There had been sit-ins three out of the four years and [the administration] just needed it all to stop.”

In a letter to a concerned alum, O’Connell stood by the administrations’ actions, writing that they were neither “vindictive nor Machiavellian.”

“I hope that you will try to understand the painful choices which confronted the University and to appreciate the difficulties of the course the University of Chicago chose,” he wrote. “It chose perhaps the most difficult [course] of all: to attempt to govern itself.”

According to the New York Times, the FBI had credited their letter to a “concerned alumnus.”

While some former students believe that the government could have played a role, Flacks, the Senate committee, and the FBI all believed that the FBI was unlikely to have been involved in the attack.

Fallout from a Year of Protest

In November 1969, Student Government President Michael Barnett (Ph.D. ’76) resigned over a lack of responsive -

Levi, for one, was eager for the University to move on from its troubles in 1969. In his annual State of the University address to the University Senate, Levi never mentioned protests or discipline except to say that 1969 “has been an interesting year.”

This piece was produced by the M aroon ’s Investigations team, whose members are Celeste Alcalay, Evgenia Anastasakos, Elena Eisenstadt, Zachary Leiter, Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon, and Anushree Vashist.

A maroon article from May 6, 1969 addresses the assault of assistant professor Richard Flacks by an unknown assailant in his office.

Edward H. Levi, who served as president of the University of Chicago from 1968 to 1975, is sworn in as Attorney General of the United States in 1975. courtesy of the gerald r ford presidential library

VIEWPOINTS

The Lines We Will Not Cross

The University must make a full-throated defense of its core values, even—and especially—in the face of an administration that would have it deny them.

By CLIFFORD ANDO

At 10 a.m. on March 26, in Max Palevsky Cinema, the leadership of the University of Chicago conducted a “Campus Conversation on Federal Affairs.” At issue was the flurry of executive orders and departmental actions on higher education from the Trump administration. These included threats to university health via changes in indirect cost recovery, threats to institutional autonomy via interpretive claims about the viability of specific DEI initiatives under federal law, as well as attempts to suppress free speech on campus via actions against broad classes of persons who are without the full protections of the first amendment. Other issues were the termination of grants and the possibility of federal funding withdrawal under conditions such as those given to Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. The

anxiety in the room surely arose from Columbia’s agreements to place its Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies under so-called academic receivership and to conduct searches for new faculty in other departments in which non-academic forms of judgment will contribute to determine the outcome of the search.

In its opening remarks, the University’s leadership affirmed in very general terms its commitment to “our” core values of academic freedom and freedom of expression, as well as support for research and for students. There followed questions from the in-person and online audiences. These were pointed, informed, carefully framed, and deeply grounded in the principles that sustain universities as universities: the autonomy of academic judgment on the part of individuals and collectives, openness to the world, and the

equality of dignity of all persons in the community, without which “free inquiry” would be a sham.

What people wanted to hear was that our leaders understand the existential nature of the threat we are facing; that they understand that the threat is confronting higher education as a whole and that it is best faced—perhaps can only be faced—through collective action; and that the University will use its extraordinary resources of money and talent to protect its members.

In short, we wanted to hear that the University of Chicago will not elect to become less than a university in order to remain a site of federally funded research.

In honor of the brilliant colleagues who raised their voices in the meeting, I offer some red lines that we could elect not to cross and some stands we could choose to take:

We understand attacks on any university to be an attack on our values. The university is an ideal, and we will defend it everywhere.

We will not compromise on the autonomy of academic judgment. We will not allow outside pressure to intrude upon or affect teaching, grading, research, or hiring.

We affirm the absolute right to academic and political speech, within the bounds of civil engagement, by all members of the community. We commit to defend these rights, including the provision of assistance to members of the University community whose legal status makes them vulnerable to state authority.

We affirm the dignity and worth of all members of the University community and understand equality of dignity to be a precondition for freedom of speech.

We will not assist in the re -

moval of any person from the University on the grounds that their speech causes offense. Furthermore, we will help any member who travels abroad to rejoin our community of inquiry.

We will not bury our principles in private communication or direct messaging. The values that we endorse are worthy of speaking aloud, in the voice of the University, or we are not committed to them at all.

In theory, the University’s endowment exists to support the projects of teaching and inquiry. Let’s not fail to be a university, simply to preserve the endowment.

Clifford Ando is the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Classics and History and in the College, as well as Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch University.

An Open Letter to President Alivisatos and Provost Baicker on the Trump Administration’s Threat to Academic Freedom

The actions taken by the new Trump administration represent a clear political intrusion on the academic autonomy of our research and teaching activities.

Dear President Alivisatos and Provost Baicker,

We write to you as concerned

members of the scholarly community here at the University. The actions taken by the new Trump administration repre -

sent a clear political intrusion on the academic autonomy of our research and teaching activities. There is no ambiguity

in the University’s policies about how it ought to relate to such intrusion. Per the Kalven Report, “From time to time instances

will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university

CONTINUED ON PG. 17

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.” We note the characterization here of the University’s role as an “obligation” and the characterization of executing this obligation as “active defense.” We believe it is clear what such an active defense entails in the present moment:

The University has chosen to admit students and hire instructors and researchers on their academic merit whom the federal government may now seek to target for retribution, criminalization, or deportation based on ideological criteria of no appropriate concern to the University. Although we recognize that the University must comply with all court orders, the University has no obligation to provide information or other assistance to immigration authorities that is not mandated by subpoena or judicial order. We ask that the University publicly confirm that it will not cooperate with immigration authorities or with requests for information about students, faculty, and staff that are not strictly required by law.

The University has chosen to establish programs of scientific research based on their scholarly promise and must continue to support such programs even if the federal government cuts their funding for politically motivated reasons. We ask that the University publicly commit to providing stopgap funding for federally funded grants that may be blocked, frozen, cut, or canceled by the Trump administration, especially in instances where faculty, staff, contractors, and/or students will not be paid.

The University has chosen to commit itself strongly to protection of freedom of thought and expression and is justifiably proud of its ideologically diverse community. In line with these commitments, the Uni-

versity may not comply with federal pressure to designate certain political ideologies as inherently discriminatory. We ask the University to publicly commit to rejecting any efforts to equate political disagreement with religious, racial, or national discrimination and to also not sharing the names or contact information of students, staff, or faculty based on their perceived or actual political opinions or affiliations. Even in the event of a University disciplinary proceeding or an encounter with the University of Chicago Police, the University must not willingly volunteer members of its own community for additional ideological targeting and retaliation by higher political powers.

The University has chosen to establish a range of centers and programs focused on areas of the world or historical, social, and individual experiences that have been made sites of political controversy (colonialism, race, gender, sexuality). These decisions have been based in all cases on scholarly discussion and scholarly consensus. The University’s free speech and academic freedom principles mean that support for these programs, or others which may be targeted in similar ways, cannot now be made dependent on shifting ideological preferences or on a desire to preserve federal funding. We ask that the University commit to refusing all pressure to disinvest from or otherwise disavow or stigmatize these units in any way. All of the above particular obligations flow clearly from the singular obligation described in the Kalven Report. We recognize that to meet these obligations will not be easy, and we stand ready as a community to defend our institution when it defends us, by all the means it has at its disposal.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Winant, Associate Professor of History, AAUP chapter president

Denis Hirschfeldt, Professor of Mathematics, AAUP chapter past president

Veronica Vegna, Senior Instructional Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures, AAUP chapter executive committee member

Mehrnoush Soroush, Assistant Professor at ISAC, AAUP chapter executive committee member

Matthew Harris, Assistant Professor at Divinity School, AAUP chapter executive committee member

William Sites, Associate Professor at Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice, AAUP chapter stewards’ council chair

Danielle Aubert, Professor of Practice in the Arts, English Language and Literature, AAUP chapter treasurer

Bożena Shallcross, Professor, Slavic Languages and Literatures

Whitney Cox, Professor, South Asian Languages and Civilizations

William Schweiker, Edward L. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor of Theological Ethics, Divinity School

Eugene Raikhel, Associate Professor, Comparative Human Development

Philip Bohlman, Distinguished Service Professor, Music and TAPS

Jennifer Mosley, Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Richard Strier, Sulzberger Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, English

Matthew M. Briones, Associate Professor, History

Christopher Kennedy, William H. Colvin Professor, Linguistics

Shannon Lee Dawdy, Professor, Anthropology

Mario Santana, Associate Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Agnes Malinowska, Assistant Instructional Professor, English and MAPH

Bruce Lincoln, Caroline E. Haskell Distinguished Professor Emeritus, History of Religions

Michele Friedner, Professor, Comparative Human Development

Curtis J. Evans, Associate Professor of American Religions and the History of Christianity, Divinity School

Anna-Latifa Mourad, Assistant Professor of Egyptian Archaeology, ISAC

Fred M. Donner, Peter B. Ritzma Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern History, ISAC

Salikoko S. Mufwene, Edward Carson Waller Distinguished Service Professor, Linguistics and RDI

Adom Getachew, Professor, Political Science and RDI

Kristen Schilt, Associate Professor, Sociology

Clifton Ragsdale, Professor, Neurobiology

Larry Norman, Frank L. Sulzberger Distinguished Service Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Ania Aizman, Assistant Professor, Slavic Languages and Literatures

Thomas C. Holt, Professor Emeritus, History

Dmitry Kondrashov, Instructional Professor, BSCD

Sianne Ngai, George M. Pullman Distinguished Service Professor, English

Alison James, Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Miguel Martinez, Professor of Spanish Literature, Romance Languages and Literatures

Itamar Francez, Associate Professor, Linguistics

Julie Orlemanski, Associate Professor, English

Matthew Kruer, Assistant Professor, History and RDI

Laura Colaneri, Teaching Fellow in Humanities, Romance Languages and Literatures

Anthony Nicholson, Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science

Darryl Li, Associate Professor, Anthropology

Tristan J. Schweiger, Assistant Instructional Professor, English and MAPH

Lisa Wedeen, Distinguished Service Professor, Political Science

Leland Jasperse, Teaching Fellow in Humanities, English

Kamala Russell, Assistant Professor, Anthropology

John Proios, Assistant Professor, Philosophy

Marissa Fenley, Harper-Schmidt Fellow, TAPS

Brianna Party, Production Manager, TAPS

Tina Post, Associate Professor, English and TAPS

Hilary Strang, Senior Instructional Professor, Humanities and MAPH

Danielle Roper, Assistant Professor, Romance Languages

Stephan Palmie, Norman and Edna Freehling Professor of Anthropology, Anthropology

Francois Richard, Associate Professor, Anthropology and RDI

Michael Geyer, Professor Emeritus, History

Alida Bouris, Associate Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Linda M. G. Zerilli, Charles E. Merriam Distinguished Service Professor, Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and Political Science

Susan Gal, Distinguished Service Professor, Anthropology and Linguistics

Chris Taylor, Associate Professor, English

Daniel Morgan, Professor, Cinema and Media Studies

Cecilia Palombo, Assistant Professor, Middle Eastern Studies

Daragh Grant, Senior Lecturer, College

John McCormick, Professor, Political Science

Alice Goff, Assistant Professor, History

Anand Venkatkrishnan, Assistant Professor, Divinity School

Cathy J. Cohen, D. Gale

Johnson Distinguished Service Professor, RDI

Sarah Pierce Taylor, Assistant Professor, Divinity School

Robert L. Kendrick, Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Music

Joseph Masco, Samuel N. Harper Professor, Anthropology

Choudhri Naim, Professor Emeritus, South Asian Languages and Civilizations

Joy Wang, Collegiate Assistant Professor, Political Science

Benjamin Lahey, Harris Professor Emeritus of Public Health Sciences, Public Health Sciences

Rochona Majumdar, Professor, Cinema and Media Studies and South Asian Languages and Civilizations

Travis A. Jackson, Associate Professor, Music

Jennifer Pitts, Professor, Political Science and Committee on Social Thought

Karlyn Gorski, Assistant Instructional Professor, Harris School of Public Policy

Alireza Doostdar, Associate Professor, Divinity School

Allyson Nadia Field, Associate Professor, Cinema and Media Studies

William H. Sewell Jr., Frank P. Hixon Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Political Science and History

Jade Pagkas-Bather, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Global Health

William Mazzarella, Neukom Family Professor, Anthropology

Kyeong-Hee Choi, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations

Elizabeth Helsinger, John Matthews Manly Distinguished Service Professor Emerita, Art History and English

Laura Letinsky, Professor, Visual Arts

Christina von Nolcken, Associate Professor Emeritus, English and Medieval Studies

Claudia Brittenham, Professor, Art History and RDI

Christine Mehring, Mary L. Block Professor, Art History

Julian Go, Professor, Sociology

Carolina López-Ruiz, Professor, Divinity School and Classics

Leora Auslander, Joann and Arthur Rasmussen Professor of Western Civilization, RDI

Anna Di Rienzo, Professor Emerita, Human Genetics

Callie Maidhof, Assistant Senior Instructional Professor, Global Studies

Gina Fedock, Associate Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Martha Feldman, Ferdinand Schevill Distinguished Service Professor, Music

James Fernandez, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Anthropology

David Lebow, Program Director, Law, Letters, and Society

Jessica Darrow, Associate Instructional Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Andrew Brandel, Associate Instructional Professor, SSCD

Renslow Sherer, Professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Global Health

Jason Grunebaum, Instructional Professor, South Asian Languages and Civilizations

Faith Hillis, Professor, History

Elaine Hadley, Professor, English

Melvyn Shochet, Kersten Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Physics

Bernard McGinn, Naomi Shenstone Donnelley Professor Emeritus, Divinity School

Patrick Morrissey, Assistant Instructional Professor, HCD

Michael J. O’Donnell, Professor Emeritus, Computer Science

Lawrence Rothfield, Associate Professor Emeritus, English

Connor Strobel, Collegiate Assitant Professor, Society of Fellows

Kimberly Kay Hoang, Professor, Sociology

W. J. T. Mitchell, Gaylord Donnelley Distinguished Ser -

vice Professor Emeritus, Art History and English

Salomé Aguilera Skvirsky, Associate Professor, Cinema and Media Studies

Russell Hall, Professor Emeritus, Medicine

Marshall Jean, Assistant Instructional Professor, MAPSS

Philippe Desan, Howard L. Willett Professor Emeritus, Romance Languages and Literatures

Amy Dru Stanley, Associate Professor, History

Gerald Rosenberg, Associate Professor Emeritus, Law School and Political Science

Zach Loeffler, Lecturer, College

Paola Iovene, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations

Aaron Turkewitz, Professor, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology

Judith Zeitlin, William R. Kenan Jr. Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations and TAPS

Tara Zahra, Hanna Holborn Gray Professor, History

Dipesh Chakrabarty, Professor, History and South Asian Languages and Civilizations

Michael Rossi, Associate Professor, History

Sarah Newman, Assistant Professor, Anthropology

Ben Laurence, Instructional Professor, Human Rights

Catherine Kearns, Assistant Professor, Classics

Benjamin Saltzman, Associate Professor, English Language and Literature

Erica Warren, Assistant Instructional Professor, Art History and MAPH

Manuela Carneiro da Cunha, Professor Emerita, Anthropology

Armando Maggi, Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Carole Ober, Professor, Human Genetics

Kathryn Crim, Collegiate Assistant Professor, College

Aidan Kaplan, Assistant In-

structional Professor, Middle Eastern Studies

Asim Farooq, Associate Professor, Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Joshua Scodel, Helen A. Regeinstein Professor Emeritus, English and Comparative Literature

Seth Brodsky, Associate Professor, Music

Diana Schwartz Francisco, Assistant Instructional Professor, History

Sara Dallavalle, Assistant Instructional Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Rashauna Johnson, Associate Professor, History

Andrés Rabinovich, Assistant Instructional Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Andrew Pitel, Assistant Instructional Professor, MAPH and Philosophy

Eve L. Ewing, Associate Professor, RDI

Darrel Chia, Assistant Instructional Professor, English and MAPH

John Schneider, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology, Public Health Sciences

Leonardo Cabrini, Assistant Instructional Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Jacob Eyferth, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations and History

W. Clark Gilpin, Margaret E. Burton Professor Emeritus, Divinity School

Kenneth W. Warren, Professor, English

Na’ama Rokem, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature and Middle Eastern Studies

Willemien Otten, Dorothy Grant Maclear Professor of History of Christianity and Theology, Divinity School

Robin Bartram, Assistant Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Jan Goldstein, Norman and Edna Freehling Professor Emerita, History

Emilio Kourí, Professor, History

K. J. Hickerson, Assistant Instructional Professor, History

Angelina Ilieva, Instructional Professor, Slavic Languages and Literatures

Elizabeth A. Grove, Professor Emerita, Neurobiology

Uahikea Maile, Assistant Professor, RDI

Barbara Kee, Professor, Pathology

Adam Green, Associate Professor, History and RDI

Victoria Prince, Professor, Organismal Biology and Anatomy

Ellie Heckscher, Associate Professor, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology

Dan Arnold, Professor, Divinity School

Colleen M. Grogan, Deborah R. and Edgar D. Jannotta University Professor, Crown Family School for Social Work, Policy and Practice

Alexandra Fraser, Assistant Instructional Professor, Art History and MAPH

Adrienne Brown, Associate Professor, English and RDI

Daniel Brudney, Professor, Philosophy

Isaac Hand, Collegiate Assistant Professor, Society of Fellows

Eman Abdelhadi, Assistant Professor, Comparative Human Development

Sally Horne-Badovinac, Professor, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology

Stephen Haswell Todd, Associate Instructional Professor, HCD

Esmael J. Haddadian, Instructional Professor, BSCD

Mary (Ella) Wilhoit, Associate Instructional Professor, MAPSS

Robert Chaskin, McCormick Foundation Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Joseph Thornton, Professor, Ecology and Evolution

Sarah Nooter, Edward Olson

Professor, Classics

Leah Feldman, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature

Mai Tuyet Pho, Associate Professor of Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Global Health

William Schultz, Assistant Professor, Divinity School

Margaret Geoga, Assistant Professor, ISAC

Gina Samuels, Professor of Social Work, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Marianne Bertrand, Professor of Economics, Booth School of Business

En-Ling Wu, Assistant Professor, Medicine

Laura Ring, Southern Asian Studies Librarian, Regenstein Library

Rachel Girty, Writing and Research Advisor, Creative Writing

Tyler W. Williams, Assistant Professor, South Asian Languages and Civilizations

Ghenwa Hayek, Associate Professor, Middle Eastern Studies

Aaron Jakes, Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern History, CEGU and History

Florian Klinger, Associate Professor, Germanic Studies

Andrei Pop, Allan and Jean Frumkin Professor, Committee on Social Thought

Hoyt Long, Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations

Lindsay Alpert, Associate Professor, Pathology

Chiara Galli, Assistant Professor, Comparative Human Development

Marisa Casillas, Assistant Professor, Comparative Human Development

Micere Keels, Professor, Comparative Human Development

Kimberly Kenny, Senior Instructional Professor in Norwegian, Germanic Studies

Edwin M. Munro, Professor, Department of Molecular Ge -

netics and Cell Biology

Leoandra Onnie Rogers, Faculty, Comparative Human Development

Kaneesha Parsard, Assistant Professor, English Language and Literature

Jonathan Flatley, Professor, English

Heather Keenleyside, Associate Professor, English

J. P. Murray, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine

Anna Symmes, Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine

Khanh Nguyen, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine

Patrick Jagoda, Professor, Cinema and Media Studies and English

Genevieve Lakier, Professor, Law School

Gil J. Stein, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, Middle East Studies

Amber Pincavage, Professor, Department of Medicine

Hakan Karateke, Professor, Middle Eastern Studies

Paul Copp, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations

Gary Herrigel, Paul Klapper Professor in the College and Division of Social Sciences, Political Science

Augusta McMahon, Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology, Middle Eastern Studies

Sophie McMillan-Myers, Writing Specialist, University Writing Program

Ada H. Shissler, Associate Professor, Middle Eastern Studies

David Woken, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Librarian, Regenstein Library

Ariel Fox, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations

Bel Olid, Assistant, Instructional Professor in Catalan and Spanish, Romance Languages and Literatures

Theo van den Hout, Arthur and Joann Rasmussen Professor of Hittite and Anatolian Languages, ISAC

Ulrike Stark, Professor, South Asian Languages and Civilizations

Andreas Glaeser, Professor, Sociology

Hussein Ali Agrama, Associate Professor, Anthropology

Josh Stadtner, PhD Candidate, English

Andrew M. Davis, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Internal Medicine and Primary Care

Noel Blanco Mourelle, Assistant Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Julie Y. Chu, Associate Professor, Anthropology

Michael Cohen, Senior Research Analyst, Psychology

Neil Brenner, Lucy Flower Professor of Urban Sociology, Sociology

Kay Heikkinen, Ibn Rushd Lecturer in Arabic, Middle Eastern Studies

Noémie Ndiaye, Associate Professor, English and Romance Languages and Literatures

Carolyn Barnes, Associate Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Brian Nord, CASE Scientist, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Andrea Justine Landi, Assistant Professor, Medicine

Emily Simon, Graduate Student, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Sam McDermott, research staff, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Sarah McDaniel, Teaching Fellow in Humanities, English and Gender and Sexuality Studies

Alice Yao, Associate Professor, Anthropology

Scott Jung, Writing Specialist, Writing Program

Sarah Osment, Writing Specialist, Writing Program

Larisa Reznik, Assistant Instructional Professor, Jewish Civilization

Nell Pach, Writing and Research Advisor, English

Tracey Rosen, Instructional Professor, Social Sciences

Elaine Waxman, Lecturer,

Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice

Rachel Mehendale, Assistant Professor, Neurology

Gabriel Ojeda-Sagué, Teaching Fellow in Humanities, English

Sarah-Gray Lesley, Teaching Fellow in Humanities, English

Luke Joyner, Assistant Instructional Professor, Art History

Lilly Immergluck, Professor of Pediatrics, Infectious Diseases and Global Health

Damien Bright, Lecturer, Anthropology and MAPSS

Aziz Huq, Professor, Law

Hans Thomalla, Helen A. Regenstein Professor, Music

Jennifer Cole, Professor, Comparative Human Development

Molly Long, Research Program Administrator, Data Science Institute

Celeste Labedz, Assistant Instructional Professor, Geophysical Sciences

Jeremy Schmidt, Writing Specialist, Writing Program

William Levine, Collegiate Assistant Professor, Society of Fellows

Geof Oppenheimer, Associate Professor of Practice, Visual Arts

Kevin King, Lecturer, HCD

Max Smith, Lecturer, MAPSS

Austin O’Malley, Assistant Professor, Middle Eastern Studies

Melinh Lai, Assistant Instructional Professor, Cognitive Science

Liam Kilby, Program Mentor, MAPH

Carl Fuldner, Assistant Instructional Professor, Art History and MAPH

Erika Dornfeld, Director of Field Education and Community Engagement, Divinity School

Nora Holmes, Undergraduate, History and LLSO

Tamara Golan, Assistant Professor, Art History

Cynthia G. Lindner, Clinical Professor of Preaching and Pas-

toral Care, Divinity School

A. E. Torres, Assistant Professor, Comparative Literature

Alison Balaskovits, Student Affairs Administrator, Music

Annie Williams, Staff, Humanities

David A. Peterson, Assistant Instructional Professor, MACSS

Anna Hornsby, Staff, Classics

Ian Jones, Lecturer, Cinema and Media Studies

Amanda Ceniti, Assistant Instructional Professor, MAPSS

Eleanor Cunningham, Graduate Student, Humanities

Alice Luna, Graduate Student, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Maria Steinrueck, Postdoctoral Scholar, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Ariane Dekker, Postdoctoral Scholar, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Omar McRoberts, Associate Professor, RDI and Sociology

Joseph Dov Bruch, Assistant Professor, Public Health Sciences

Tien-Tien Jong, PhD Candidate, Cinema and Media Studies

Alex Muir, Assistant Professor, Ben May Department for Cancer Research

Tanvi Karwal, Postdoctoral Scholar, Astronomy and Astrophysics

Austin Stover, Graduate Student, Physics

Nancy Martinez, Student, College

Catherine Sullivan, Professor, Visual Arts

Francesco Zucconi, Visiting Associate Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures

Sam Daly, Associate Professor, History

Marco G. Ferrari, Lecturer, Cinema and Media Studies

Emily Kern, Assistant Professor, History

Matthew W. Stolper, John A. Wilson Professor Emeritus of Assyriology, ISAC

Olga Sanchez, Associate Instructional Professor, Music

Marina Blough, Graduate Student, MAPH

ARTS

Seasoned Angst and Stellar Sounds

Arts Reporter Adrian Dai writes about veteran rock band Bad Suns’s infectious performance at The Salt Shed.

By ADRIAN DAI | Arts Reporter

On a windy Wednesday night, under a hubbub on the precipice of spring, The Salt Shed thumps. Its heart is resuscitated by the small, industrious band Bad Suns’s polish and zeal, opening for FINNEAS.

Bad Suns is, to the rock world, an elder of elders. Having been on the scene for the past 15 years, in a world where seven years is a long lifespan, one wonders how their music perseveres so consistently.

Despite the average age of the band members being 31, their music still appeals to the familiar narratives of teenage romance paired with a sound of youthful anxiety. Hailing from Woodland Hills in Los Angeles, Christo Bowman, Gavin Bennett, and Miles Morris inject carefree passion and vibrant exuberance into the 3,300-strong crowd. This ethos was perfectly encapsulated by their opening rendition of “Swimming in the Moonlight,” presenting a classic honeymoon anthem with an alt-rock twist. “I couldn’t love you more if I tried,” Bowman sang.

Bad Suns sits in the corner of the mat of fame. Their adolescent–relationship-angst pop songs are just catchy enough to hum along to, yet not famous enough to be fa-

miliar to the young crowd in front of them. So it came as a surprise how entranced the audience of FINNEAS fans were when Christo Bowman began with “Swimming in the Moonlight.” The poetic, electro-rock ballad perfectly complemented Bowman’s substantial stage presence—15 years of practice and experience translated to charisma in every little movement.

“Baby Blue Shades” came on next, a song that puts a positive, tropical, carefree twist on the ups and downs of moving on. “Go on, forget me, I wish that you let me” is followed by the quiet, unspoken whispers of the heart: “I miss how you hold me, each kiss feels so lonely.” Throughout the performance, Bowman and Bennett looked the part of seasoned veterans—calculated head tilts, choreographed glides across the stage, and emotive facial expressions made them appear untouchable.

No movement wasted, no misplaced key, no doubt in their sound—this is the beauty of Bad Suns. They rely not on their reputation, but their indubitable passion and belief in their sound. Bowman continued, breathless at times but nevertheless unyielding, track after track.

“Daft Pretty Boys” speaks brightly of love and jealousy—how a person wishes the love of their life would stop wasting “time on daft pretty boys” who won’t love them back. “Life Was Easier When I Only Cared About Me” came right after, an equally poppy song that speaks of love at first sight, a sort of vernacular sequel to “Baby Blue Shades”: “You caught me by surprise, changed my destination.… Life was easier when I only cared about me.”

Bad Suns is an exemplary case of perfectionism, but that’s not to say it can’t have fun. In the middle of their setlist, Bowman took off his blazer, to the amusement and bewilderment of the majority-female crowd. A song later, he stopped for the first time in the set: he wanted to play a “fun game.”

“I’m trying to see something,” he said to the Chicagoan crowd. “I was wondering what it would sound like if everyone in this crowd played our new song, ‘Communicating,’ all at once,” he said with confidence and goodwill. Laughter followed the plausibly deniable attempt to increase Spotify listens—mixed with the poor signal in The Shed, it made for an entertaining and unique intermission to the deep thumps produced by drummer Morris all night.

A Paradox of Performance

Loud, abrasive, heart-thumping—no adjective can fully capture Bad Suns’s opening performance in Chicago. Under the eclectic kaleidoscopic lights of The Salt Shed, trio Bowman, Bennett, and Morris beautifully illustrated the appeal of little-known indie bands—and why we as the audience should never write them off. Bad Suns’s skill, commitment, and labor over the past decade is evident in the atmosphere they create.

Associate Arts Editor Shawn Quek explores how alternative pop icon FINNEAS

brings whispered confessions to a roaring crowd.

By SHAWN QUEK | Associate Arts Editor

A mug of hot tea makes its way on stage with tonight’s performer, a quiet detail so unassuming it nearly vanishes.

Yet, it does not—tonight it is noticed, even studied, by thousands, and the indoor venue of The Salt Shed roars. This is the

perfect paradox at the heart of FINNEAS: whispered confessions of bedroom pop amplified for a crowd of thousands.

The 10-time Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter and Los Angeles native brings palpable anticipation to the

3,300-person crowd in The Salt Shed. When Finneas Baird O’Connell, or FINNEAS, steps to the mic, his presence is unassuming yet poised. He does not present the charisma of excess or spectacle. Instead, he embodies a melancholic observer of love and fame.

The first track of his latest album For

Cryin’ Out Loud!, “Starfucker,” begins. FINNEAS’s songwriting prowess is on full display as the crowd, already primed and implicated in the longing and heartbreak, latches onto his lyricism, chanting, “You’re a fucking narcissist.”

FINNEAS’s setlist is one of contrast—

Bad Suns’s front man, Christo Bowman, performs shirtless for the crowd. adrian dai

But what does protest sound like when framed within pop’s lush harmonies?

tracks like “Lotus Eater” and “Cleats” are raw with lyrics drenched in the nostalgia of past selves and past lovers. The crowd sings along not because they have lived these stories exactly, but because they recognize themselves in them. They cry the lyrics back in response, pondering the people we once loved, those who went from familiarity to “mystery,” missing those who were once “always on your mind.”

Throughout the performance, FINNEAS oscillates between instruments, moving from keyboard to guitar with the fluidity of a virtuoso. His voice bends accordingly: rising, breaking, and smoothing out again, as if designed to be accompanied and accentuated by each key, chord, and fret.

“The Kids Are All Dying” injects a note of cultural critique: “What’s your carbon footprint and could you be doing more?” But what does protest sound like when framed within pop’s lush harmonies? The Salt Shed roars in response, sounding like something between a ballad and a war cry. The crowded space moves with him. Swaying becomes dancing, singing becomes shouting.

“Sweet Cherries” is the kind of song that seduces before it turns, opening less like a bedroom pop earworm and more like a cheery summer anthem. The track opens with FINNEAS reminiscing about how he “couldn’t take [his] eyes off you” and

lamenting about how “she’ll break your heart with her hands tied.” The track then shifts abruptly into a lover’s fractured frustration: “What went wrong?” FINNEAS invites the crowd into his soul to revel with him in the ache of memory and to participate in his longing as if it were their own.

The night’s most striking moment comes with “Let’s Fall in Love for the Night.” The stage lights dim, thousands of phone flashlights ignite in the darkness in the image of a manufactured constellation. The song itself—delicate and yearning— lends itself to the fabulously fundamental contradiction that is FINNEAS’s music. Bedroom pop walks on a tightrope when it comes to live performance. Can a song about lonely souls survive when sung by thousands? FINNEAS certainly thinks so.

In this glimpse into a new iteration of an alternative headliner, FINNEAS stays true to his roots of bedroom pop. Amidst rich rhythmic instrumentals, soul-stirring songwriting, and astounding vocal range, he asks the crowd, “Who are you gonna call when it gets dark?” The audience is surely left wondering.

The artist’s beating heart bleeds beyond his sleeve. His emotions permeate his lyrics, and his vocal range crashes like waves that soak the audience in heady heartache. FINNEAS’s music feels like a secret whispered between lovers, but it also yearns to be heard, felt, and shared as something vast.

University Theater’s If/Then: Eventually, Everything Is Going to Be Okay

Arts Reporter Ibrahim Shaheen reviews If/Then from University Theater, a musical with a unique approach to exploring decisions in modern society.

By IBRAHIM SHAHEEN | Arts Reporter

Make a decision, take a side, choose a path; for better or for worse, the fast pace of life in the modern city is a constant motivator to make hard decisions before we ever feel sure or ready. The musical If/Then, recently performed by University Theater at the Logan Center, explores this con-

temporary issue through a split timeline, touching on work, friendship, love, and loss.

If/Then begins when 38-year-old Elizabeth (Joelle Singer Jensen), an ambitious and recently divorced city planner looking for a fresh start, moves back to her hometown of New York City and reacquaints

herself with old friends. Torn between two different friends calling her different nicknames and competing for time with her, the story diverges: “Liz” joins Kate (Millie Walsh) in a search for love and romance, while “Beth” joins Lucas (Christian Beltran) at an activist meeting to make career connections. The grass is always greener, but neither timeline is a perfect pasture.

Liz’s successful pursuit of romance begins to take its toll as she feels dissatisfied with her lack of career, while Beth’s successful career leads to romantic turmoil and feelings of unfulfillment.

After several off-putting dates, Liz meets Josh (Josh Winston), a surgeon and a soldier who wins her over soon after they CONTINUED ON PG. 22

FINNEAS stuns the crowd. muriel margare

Well-delivered moments of irony and comedy punctuate the play.

start dating. Despite admitting to fears over the uncertain future of both their relationship and her career, Liz decides to take the leap with him anyway. In the other branch of the timeline, Beth uses her connection with Stephen (Nico Brown), an old classmate of hers in the Department of City Planning, to secure a job as deputy director. She soon finds a protégé in Elena (Julia

Morales), a young and earnest intern, who serves as a dramatic foil to Beth. “She really loves working with Beth, but she has this other ambition that really is what takes precedence in her life in contrast to what took precedent in Beth’s life,” Morales told me, portraying Elena not necessarily as an ideal that Beth doesn’t measure up to but rather just another human with different priorities. This relationship ultimately un-

derpins the musical’s message of encouragement and reassurance. As Morales told me, “The decisions that you make really do matter and could really change your life and the lives of the people who are around you,” and, in the end, “things always work out.”

As the musical progressed, I found myself quickly drawn in by relatable characters and moving performances. Well-delivered moments of irony and comedy punctuate the play, from the painfully awkward and unlikeable dates Liz goes on to the cries of exasperation from a disgruntled subway rider amid frequent train delays. Rather than distracting from the stakes or drama of the play’s more serious moments and topics, these pockets of irony add personality and relatability to the production. When, for instance, society harshly exacts a price on Elizabeth for her ambitious pursuits (no matter what goal they are toward), the clever employment of humor cements a connection with the audience, validating identities of mundane plights.

Beyond the writing, the visual presentation of the musical was dynamic and engaging, particularly with regard to the lighting, which was used very effectively to emphasize the dramatic focus of any given scene.

Seduction by Contradiction

Associate Arts Editor Shawn Quek

At one moment, that was done through a spotlight in the dark, kicking off a scene by drawing all the attention to Stephen, alone on a balcony, clearing his schedule over the phone so Beth could get her big shot at a city planning job. In the next scene, a dramatic clash of red and blue reflected diverging futures as Elizabeth faced proposal and pregnancy in both timelines—Liz both excited and anxious about a promising life with the man she loves and Beth gripped by horror and regret at the prospect of a future with the friend she just slept with for fun. Striking visuals like these both drove the plot home and made for a memorable experience that stuck with me long after the curtains were drawn.

Both Beth and Liz encounter different struggles and successes, often in exactly opposite areas of life. But when all is said and done, Elizabeth enjoys the highs and picks herself up from the lows, finding her way to what was meant for her no matter the timeline. Neither path is right or wrong—they are simply different, which is something we learn only in hindsight. Ultimately, this production’s message is one of inspiration and perseverance, offering some reassurance that, even in the bleakest moments, things can still turn out alright.

indulges in Opus by Mark Anthony Green, the latest cutting thriller from A24 that seduces an audience through hypnotic satirical critique.

By SHAWN QUEK | Associate Arts Editor

Cinema, at its best, does not merely tell stories; it enacts a seduction.

Opus, writer and Director Mark Anthony Green’s audacious debut, is such a film. The film is a work of high style and sharp teeth, an artifact of the pop culture excess that it’s complicit in and ruthlessly critical of in its examination. The picture is a thriller, a satire, and a fever dream. Yet, above all, Opus is a film of contradictions: intoxicating yet disgusting, comedic yet horrific, opulent yet lean.

The premise reads like one of

Grimms’ fairy tales rewritten for an era of tabloid headlines and algorithmic obsession. Ariel (Ayo Edebiri)—a budding writer of piercing intelligence—is lured to the remote fortress of Moretti (John Malkovich), an aging pop deity who has spent the last 30 years missing, indulging in his own mythology. The mise-enscène is a battleground of contradictory aesthetics: the grotesque and the glamorous, the ritualized worship of celebrity and the queasy realization that participation is surrender. Ariel is not simply an observer, she is Moretti’s next initiate.

To call Opus a critique of celebrity culture is to reduce it. It does not merely criticize. It embodies, extends, and ultimately deranges the phenomenon. Green has fashioned a film that exposes the mechanisms of its world, forcing the audience to experience them viscerally.

Green understands the paradox at the heart of the project, remarking in a collegiate journalism roundtable interview with the Maroon, “The creative endeavor [is] to make a thriller, but the human in me is just such a smart ass. I can’t not make a joke. There’s a human in me that is just deeply, deeply unseri-

If/Then at University Theater. courtesy of university theater .

If Opus is about the spectacle of celebrity, it is itself a spectacle.

CONTINUED FROM PG. 22

ous, that thinks everything is funny, that thinks humor is truly not only the most beautiful weapon, but something more powerful than any other human interaction.”

The film operates within this humanistic dialectic, the tension between horror and humor, between the absurd and the sinister. The whiplash-inducing pacing—frequent moments of grotesque violence cut short by offhand jokes—does not ease the tension as much as it sharpens it, paralyzing the viewer in complicit disorientation.

The film’s aesthetic, a collaboration between Green and Director of Photography Tommy Maddox-Upshaw, reinforces this vertigo. The colors are rich

and the images grandiose, inviting the audience into a world that welcomes indulgence even as it critiques the very impulse to indulge. The camera does not simply observe Ariel’s journey; it seduces the viewer into it, making us feel as though we are wandering Moretti’s compound alongside her. If Opus is about the spectacle of celebrity, it is itself a spectacle, reveling in the lurid beauty of its own illusions.

Sound plays a similarly crucial role in shaping the film’s intoxicating unease. Green, with characteristic irreverence, describes his sound team’s approach: “I only hired freaks. I’m a firm believer that when you hire freaks, let them get freaky. And so Trevor [Gates] and Casey [Genton], who did the sound on the film, they

got freaky. We can always dial it back, but I want your freakiest idea.”

That commitment to excess is evident in the film’s auditory landscape—an original pop score that could easily dominate a Top 50 playlist yet is deployed as ironic counterpoints to the horror unfolding on screen. The sound design is not merely atmospheric; it is psychological, embedding itself in the audience’s nervous system like an anxious defense mechanism.

Underpinning all these technical masterclasses is a deep puzzle, one that Opus does not solve so much as forces the viewer to confront. The film’s dreamlike ambience invites us into its mystery but never grants us full access, leaving us, like Ariel, wondering whether we are complicit in the spectacle or merely

SPORTS

Recent Results

Baseball returned to its winning ways with a dominant four-game sweep against Brandeis (Mass.) which included a 16–1 win on Sunday. They move to 17–5 for the season.

Lacrosse recorded two dominant wins against Albion (Mich.) and Carroll (Wis.). They followed these wins up with a 26–3 win against Trine (Ind.) on Sunday. They are now 8–4 for the season.

Softball suffered three tough losses to No. 18 ranked WashU (Mo.) this past weekend. They move to 11–10 for the season.

Swimming and Diving capped off their season with a historic performance at the NCAA National Championship earning 35 All-American awards and four National Championships.

Men’s Tennis fell just short at the Stag Hen tournament, losing to No. 1 ranked Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Calif.) in the finals. They quickly bounced back from this loss, beating No. 22 Carnegie Mellon (Pa.) on Saturday. They are now 14–2 for the season.

Women’s Tennis stayed hot with a big win against No. 3 Emory (Ga.) on Saturday. They have now won nine straight matches, bringing their record to 14–1 overall.

Track and Field kicked off their outdoor season at the WashU Distance Carnival last weekend with second-year Sanju Patel and fourth-year Anna Watson delivering impressive performances in their respective events.

Wrestling closed out their season at the NCAA National Championships. Third-year Sean Conway stole the show for the Maroons, finishing as runner-up after a historic finals run.

witnessing it. As a former GQ columnist, Green brings his firsthand experience of celebrity culture into the picture. Opus is not just a film about celebrity culture; it is a film that understands such a cancer from the inside out, with all its seductions and violences.

Borrowing from the sensational silk screens of Warhol as much as from the cuttingly critical etchings of Goya, Opus captures a contradiction: a culture drunk off its own excess, celebrating the power of influence despite its inevitable abuse. One does not “like” a film such as Opus. One submits to it. At the end of the film, the audience is left with a question: Do we resist its pull, or do we recognize, in our own enthrallment, the very thing it seeks to expose?

Upcoming Games

Baseball

Chicago vs. WashU (Mo.), 3 p.m. CST, Friday, April 4.

Chicago vs. WashU (Mo.) Doubleheader, 12 p.m., 3 p.m. CST, Saturday, April 5.

Chicago vs. WashU (Mo.), 11 a.m. CST, Sunday, April 6.

Lacrosse

Chicago vs. Carthage (Wis.), 1 p.m. CST, Saturday, April 5.

Softball

Chicago @ Carnegie Mellon (Pa.), 3 p.m. EST, Friday, April 4.

Chicago @ Carnegie Mellon (Pa.) Doubleheader, 12 p.m., 2 p.m. EST, Saturday, April 5.

Men’s Tennis

Chicago vs. Purdue Northwest (Ind.), 1:00 p.m. CST, Saturday, April 5.

Chicago vs. Gustavus Adolphus at University of Wisconsin–Madison (Minn.), TBA, Sunday, April 6.

Track and Field

Chicagoland Championships hosted by Elmhurst College (Ill.), TBA, Friday, April 4–Saturday, April 5.

CROSSWORD

88. Stranger Danger

By NOAH SODICKSON | Crossword Constructor

42 Fast pitches?

44 Like mammoths and narwhals

45 Encryption machine depicted in “The Imitation Game”

46 Return fee?

Frenchman’s response when you ask if they have a favorite video game console? 39 Oscars, e.g.

San Antonio place of remembrance

Burt’s Bees product

49 Home to the National Museum of Yemen

52 Kissing disease

53 Animals with superb knees, in a phrase

54 Where remains might remain 56 Dentist’s deg.