For the second year in a row, the University of Chicago forced students to sign a “Required COVID-19 Attestation,” a lengthy document that demands students click “I agree” to a number of statements and rules regarding COVID-19.
UChicago, which last year was named America’s “No. 1 free speech campus,” is openly defying its commitment to academic freedom because the attestation goes far beyond forced compliance to inane COVID mandates — it actually thought-polices students.
Failure to sign UChicago’s attestation by last Monday meant your student ID was deactivated and you were banned from all university facilities, barring you from attending class.
In order to attend class, students are forced to “agree” in writing to the assertion that “COVID-19 poses a serious public health risk.” Students like me must also “agree” to the claim that “my failure to follow the [COVID-19] requirements,” like wearing a cloth over my mouth, “may endanger myself and/or others.”
Similarly, students who receive a religious exemption from UChicago’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate are forced to sign their names below a statement reading, “I acknowledge that I may be placing myself and others at risk of serious illness should I contract a disease that could have been prevented through proper vaccination.”
COVID-19 has a 99.5 percent survival rate or better for those younger than 65. To my healthy peers and me at the University of Chicago, COVID-19 poses less of a threat than pneumonia or the seasonal flu. But in order to attend class, we must sign our names to COVID-19 hysteria, by attesting we believe COVID “poses a serious public health risk.”
Never mind that this insistence that COVID-19 poses a “serious health risk” is performative and has allowed government officials to seize extraordinary liberties from Americans — everything from running a business to traveling freely.
I am also not “endanger[ing] myself and/or others” by refusing to submit to the university’s draconian health measures. Masks, for example, haven’t even proven to be effective. And rules like mask-wearing and social distancing, which will allegedly “save lives,” are often ignored by the very government and health officials issuing them.
Commitments to Free Speech Are Now Meaningless
Yet UChicago, which is revered for its purported dedication to free thought, provides no option for students to disagree with the claims in its COVID-19 attestation. In order to attend the in-person classes for which we pay tuition, all students must submit to the university’s point of view, without any questions asked.
The statements we are forced to “agree” to are ludicrous, but, more importantly, students should never be forced to say they adhere to any belief or ideology just to obtain an education. It’s nothing short of Orwellian to tell students that in order to engage in the classroom’s free exchange of ideas, we must have the same dogmatic opinion on COVID-19 as the University of Chicago’s administration.
The University of Chicago is world-famous for its “Chicago Principles,” a mission statement that professes a commitment to protect free speech and encourages open debate at the university. The Chicago Principles have long been a staple of our campus community. They have inspired more than 80 other academic institutions to champion free speech. They’ve also earned the university both positive media attention and goodwill from alumni donors.
UChicago’s 2021 COVID-19 attestation not only tramples on the Chicago Principles, it violates the university’s cherished Kalven Report. The Kalven Report is a 1967 UChicago faculty committee report that warns if the university takes political positions, they might chill the environment for free expression and academic freedom. The report also emphasizes that it’s essential for the university to remain a place where individuals can explore new ideas and hold any intellectual positions they wish, without the university administration interfering.
The university’s COVID-19 attestation is a blatant and disturbing violation of both these celebrated documents because it is literally the university administration mandating a belief system for its students. The attestation also does not stop there. In addition to demanding mental submission to its claims, the attestation forces students to say they’ll report on their dissident peers.
Last year, UChicago implemented an anonymous COVID-19 violation reporting system known as the University of Chicago Accident Incident Reporting (UCAIR) System. Students who violated the university’s COVID red-tape were punished by university officials for functioning like normal human beings, i.e., for standing closer than six feet apart, wearing a mask improperly, or visiting each other’s dorm rooms. The system bred an environment of discrimination, fear, social shaming, and harassment.
This year’s attestation form once again requires students to support the Communist-style surveillance and snitch system by forcing them to “agree” to “promptly report” on their fellow classmates and/or teachers to campus authorities for violations of “the University’s safety policies and practices.”
Sadly, UChicago’s totalitarian attestation form is unsurprising, given that the university has been turning its back on free expression for some time now. COVID is just the tipping point.
For about a year, the university has made its profile picture for every one of its social media handles a mask. Again, the science on mask wearing is far from decided. But masks are more than just a face covering, they are also a political statement. By changing its profile pictures to masks, the university is endorsing anti-science masks mandates that decree all people, despite age, risk level, vaccination status, or possession of natural antibodies, should wear a cloth which has a minuscule ability to limit infection, at best.
The university’s profile pictures also suggest to the world that as an institution it accepts the government’s right to mandate masks, seizing individual liberty to decide for ourselves what health measures we wish to take by assessing our own health, well-being, and priorities.
Freedom of Thought Is a Public Health Hazard
COVID-19 compliance is not just subliminal, it’s physical. UChicago, like most universities in America, enacted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, ignoring the science of natural immunity and setting a frightening precedent. A shameless violation of basic bioethics, the vaccine mandate forces students to undergo medical treatment that isn’t proven to be effective against the disease it seeks to prevent.
For more than a year, the university has been violating the Kalven Report with various school-wide political statements, including its social media profile pictures. UChicago’s vaccine mandate is also unethical and potentially dangerous.
However, neither the political statements nor the vaccine mandate are intellectual mandates. Forcing students into medical procedures and wearing masks doesn’t mean students have to believe these measures are effective, worthwhile, or healthy. This is where the university’s COVID-19 attestation takes that next step, stripping students of the right to their own opinions.
Over a span of only about three years at UChicago, I have witnessed the school quickly turn the Chicago Principles and Kalven Report, the very reason I chose to attend UChicago, into empty words. The university went from imposing its politics via email to mandating students agree with them in order to attend class.
Americans should be able to look toward the university for rigorous debates on the science of COVID and the ethics of society’s response. Instead of living up to its academic ideals, UChicago has caged the minds of its student body by mandating they become an intellectual monolith.
I fear not only for the precedent the “COVID-19 Attestation” has set, but for the impression it leaves. My peers go to 2020’s allegedly “most free” university in America, yet most of my classmates are totally desensitized to the authoritarianism imposed on us via government and school mandates. We cannot expect the next generation to defend the principles established in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence if we are being taught that bodily autonomy and freedom of thought are public health hazards.
*The views expressed in this article solely represent the views of the author, not the views of the Chicago Thinker.
In the 1950’s the book “1984” was given by a student to a UofC professor, the student was afraid what the professor would say to the student about the contents of the Orwell book, here is what the professor said after reading the Orwell book: “This book is now required reading” . I know this to be true, the student was my father in law.
I’m sorry to tell you that your father in law was either lying or mistaken. 1984 is not required reading for any hum or sosc sequence at UChicago, and a quick search of the college catalog’s English courses shows zero mentions of Orwell or 1984. Honestly, I don’t get the fixation that so many people have on 1984. It’s a great book, don’t get me wrong, but it’s required reading in most high schools already, and to teach it in college (especially UChicago) would be redundant and below the level of comprehension for most students, who are more than capable of understanding books more difficult than 1984 that explore the same themes to a greater depth.
Evita,
Your article has inspired great thought and discussion among my friends. We’re stuck on this part of the debate, to which I will ask your opinion –
Vaccines have been required by private institutions for decades now. If we were to compete with their requirement, as we do against the Covid-19 vaccine, I am concerned in two ways. Firstly, why is this suspicion raised now, instead of some other historical time? Secondly, is basing your argument on the freedom of speech truly the most efficient way of contesting your point?
Hi Emily,
While I cannot speak for Evita, I would like to mention that COVID-19 is unique, compared to the many diseases that schools tend to require vaccinations from. Firstly, diseases like measles and smallpox are very deadly to young people. As Evita mentioned, for a healthy, college-age student, there is almost no risk of serious infection or death from COVID-19. It makes sense to mandate vaccinations for say, smallpox, in schools, because children are amongst the most vulnerable. Given that the coronavirus vaccine does not mitigate the spread of the virus, only the severity, there is no need for groups not at risk to be immunized. Secondly, unlike the other vaccines that college students are required to take, there have been no long-term studies on the effects of this vaccine. (1/2)
(2/2) As for the free-speech point, the University is forcing students to agree to what are essentially political talking points, or risk punishment. For a school that claims to be committed to free speech, this is problematic. Having students like Evita calling it out is important.
Lastly, I will add that I am vaccinated. I made a personal decision that getting vaccinated was best for me. As far as I know, no one on the Chicago Thinker team argues against all vaccines, only the mandating of this one. Everyone should consult with their doctor and decide whether or not they should get vaccinated.
Best,
Rachel Ostergren
I find it bizarre that you and Evita are using measles as a counterexample to your claim, considering that the dangers between the two are very similar. You’re right that neither are particularly dangerous on an individual level for healthy college-age people, but they’re both extremely contagious and cause massive harm on a societal level. The Wikipedia page for measles states that the mortality rate is about 0.1% to 0.2%, and while the statistics for COVID are a bit fuzzier, they look to be about the same for COVID for young people; not to mention that this completely ignores the many staff and faculty members that students come into contact with on a daily basis. If you believe that measles vaccination requirements are warranted, I see no way how you can justify arguing the opposite for COVID.
PART I:
I disagree with you on several points, but I respect the philosophical underpinning of your viewpoint because individual freedoms and security can often seem to work against each other.
First problem—Free Speech:
Free speech can mean many things depending on the context, but I think you have confounded two different definitions of free speech. The meaning of free speech as espoused by UChicago is about protecting the ability of individuals and groups to publicly express their viewpoints: If the Chicago Thinker hosts a debate about the acceptability of vaccine mandates at UChicago, not interfering with this debate would fall under the commitment of the University to free speech (even if your debate ends up being a criticism of the UChicago administration). Indeed, the Chicago Principles you quote generally accompany the words “free speech” with “debate”, “discuss”, and “inquiry”.
On the other hand, the notion of free speech that you have implicitly embraced in this article is the notion that the University cannot prescribe affirmations of certain ideas as a condition for effective participation in the University community. These two definitions may seem related, but they are nonetheless fundamentally distinct. For example, just because the university agrees not to stop you from publicly declaring your opposition to vaccine mandates, it does not mean that the University cannot ask you TO declare the risks of your opposition to vaccine mandates. You can disagree all you want with the latter, but you must understand that your participation as a student ultimately hinges on your contract with University.
I disagree with you on several points, but I respect the philosophical underpinning of your viewpoint because individual freedoms and security can often seem to work against each other.
First problem—Free Speech:
Free speech can mean many things depending on the context, but I think you have confounded two different definitions of free speech. The meaning of free speech as espoused by UChicago is about protecting the ability of individuals and groups to publicly express their viewpoints: If the Chicago Thinker hosts a debate about the acceptability of vaccine mandates at UChicago, not interfering with this debate would fall under the commitment of the University to free speech (even if your debate ends up being a criticism of the UChicago administration). Indeed, the Chicago Principles you quote generally accompany the words “free speech” with “debate”, “discuss”, and “inquiry”.
I disagree with you on several points, but I respect the philosophical underpinning of your viewpoint because individual freedoms and security can often seem to work against each other.
First problem—Free Speech:
Free speech can mean many things depending on the context, but I think you have confounded two different definitions of free speech. The meaning of free speech as espoused by UChicago is about protecting the ability of individuals and groups to publicly express their viewpoints: If the Chicago Thinker hosts a debate about the acceptability of vaccine mandates at UChicago, not interfering with this debate would fall under the commitment of the University to free speech (even if your debate ends up being a criticism of the UChicago administration). Indeed, the Chicago Principles you quote generally accompany the words “free speech” with “debate”, “discuss”, and “inquiry”.
On the other hand, the notion of free speech that you have implicitly embraced in this article is the notion that the University cannot prescribe affirmations of certain ideas as a condition for effective participation in the University community. These two definitions may seem related, but they are nonetheless fundamentally distinct. For example, just because the university agrees not to stop you from publicly declaring your opposition to vaccine mandates, it does not mean that the University cannot ask you TO declare the risks of your opposition to vaccine mandates. You can disagree all you want with the latter, but you must understand that your participation as a student ultimately hinges on your contract with University.
What befuddles me is the students stand for this. U Chicago is a renowned research university. Basic level research and an elementary statistics would be enough for anyone with minimal critical thinking skills to question the whole premise for the draconian measures they are forced to endure in the name of “education”.
The institutional behavior described here is imposed by a concentration of special interests, including trustees. The administration merely processes these directives (see https://www.dissidentprof.com/8-home/169-why-are-universities-pushing-covid-vaccination). Its policy is not unlike the Milgram obedience experiments at Yale. Booth professor Richard Thaler recently argued in the New York Times, for “increasingly forceful” mandate measures (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/business/vaccine-pandemic-nudge-passport.html): It indicates commercial opportunism, and a complete collapse of rational thought. Regards, ’96
I mean the university has an interest in making sure an outbreak doesn’t happen on campus but go off mr. business student
Y’all were on such a great streak. No one had posted on this sorry excuse for a newspaper for two whole months; why couldn’t you have just kept that streak going?
Very good info. Lucky me I came across your website by accident (stumbleupon).
I have saved it for later!
I’ve been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or
weblog posts on this kind of space . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled
upon this website. Studying this information So i’m satisfied to exhibit that I have an incredibly good uncanny feeling I came upon exactly
what I needed. I such a lot unquestionably will
make certain to don?t omit this web site and give it a
glance regularly.
America is proclaimed for it’s independence and individualism, those traits are being challenged by the forces of conformity and pacifism. The battle is raging our freedom is at stake.
Conformity and… pacifism? What does pacifism have to do with any of this? And who are these nebulous “forces of pacifism” you’re referring to?
Is demoncrats charging they phone and giving the clot shot the reason for this treachery? Thank you for ?
I’m just gonna point out that the Kalven report doesn’t say that the university abstains from taking a stance on *any* political issue, what it says is that it abstains from taking a stance on any issue in which the university as an institution doesn’t have a vested interest. And in this case, the university has an obvious vested interest in making sure that no outbreaks occur on campus. Just because an issue was forced into becoming political doesn’t mean it’s suddenly completely off-limits.
I agree with Matthew Heck – the Biden Administration’s actions are not mistakes, stupidity – its intentional.
What are their motives
2 reasons:
1) The Powers that be in the Biden Administration, the Mainstream Media, Social media envy, hate certain groups of people like MAGA Trump supporters, Southerners, traditional Christians – HATE White European Americans.
2) It gives these people, these groups power.
Though most of the country, especially our Chicago is falling down, The powers that be in the Biden Demorat administration, the WOKE peoples – they’re power and wealthy just keeps increasing:
The Obamas have a mansion in a posh Diplomat neighborhood in Washington DC, a Magnum PI place in Hawaii and now a $13 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard MA.
As the Joe Walsh Rock song from the 1980s went:
“Life’s been good to me (Obamas, WOKE Demorats) so far”.
Wow, you don’t like the rules? Tough toodles, snowflake! Maybe you need a safe space to go cry about it?
With havin so much written content do you ever run into any problems
of plagorism or copyright violation? My website has a lot of unique content I’ve either created
myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my authorization.
Do you know any methods to help protect against content from being stolen? I’d truly appreciate it.