Faculty wars: The debate over the Milton Friedman Institute

The Chicago Theological Seminary is slated to become the home of
the Milton Friedman Institute. Picture courtesy of
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/univ_chicago_neo_gothic_buildings.htm.

Things are a little hectic on campus.

This afternoon, for the first time since 1998, the Faculty Senate convened. Though technically the Senate, which is comprised of the entire faculty, is supposed to meet at least once a year, this practice fell into disuse when the meeting became a mere outlet for the University’s president to give a “State of the University” speech. It took the landmark announcement of the Milton Friedman Institute (MFI) and the ensuing controversy to prompt the Executive Council of the Senate, an elected eight-person body, to call for today’s meeting, though other topics were covered as well.

Some history: In May, the University issued a press release announcing the creation of an institute bearing the name of one of the University’s most prominent (and controversial) thinkers and economists, Milton Friedman. The institute’s purpose, according to U of C President Robert Zimmer, is “to build on the University’s existing leadership position [in economics] and make the Milton Friedman Institute a primary intellectual destination for economics by creating a robust forum for engagement of our faculty and students with scholars and policymakers from around the world.” With faculty and researchers from the College and graduate schools as well as from beyond Hyde Park, the MFI will focus research on economics as it relates to public policy through a range of disciplines. The University agreed to devote some $200 million to its creation.

But then in June, concerned faculty began circulating a petition questioning the MFI’s purpose, implications, and risks. The Committee for Open Research on Economy and Society (CORES) was founded to this end. Key among CORES’s concerns are the possibility of a decidedly Friedman-esque slant toward free markets and the Chicago School in all its work, and the potential influence of donors (particularly those who enter the “Milton Friedman Society,” which is open to those who donate upward of $1 million to the Institute).

The administration and various MFI proponents have by and large rejected these fears as unfounded or illegitimate.

As CORES has intensified its anti-MFI efforts, the Institute’s proponents’ reactions have run the gamut from indifference—as seen in their collective refusal to debate the issue with journalist Naomi Klein when she visited two weeks ago—to bitterness and indignation at the accusations. In yesterday’s Maroon (the independent student newspaper of the University), John Cochrane, a professor at the Graduate School of Business and a member of the Institute’s faculty committee, wrote a column blasting CORES’s petition.

CORES, meanwhile, has done its best to generate publicity and support, not just from faculty but from students as well: At the moment, there are 163 faculty and 1,058 student signatories listed on the petition. Today, a student rally on the quads took place to show support for faculty who intend to speak out against the MFI at the afternoon’s Faculty Senate meeting. Groups of students and protesters were also present outside the building that was set to host the meeting. Many sported anti-MFI (or, as one protester described it, “pro-democracy”) signs and handed out roses as a form of quiet dissent.

The issue escalated when the Executive Council shifted the schedule of today’s meeting, lengthening the time allotted for Zimmer’s address and eliminating a five-minute-long speech by Divinity School professor Bruce Lincoln, who is a co-chair of CORES, among other changes. With the new schedule, Lincoln would still be allowed to speak, but only for up to three minutes and if personally called on to do so by Zimmer. The administration has said that the changes are due to the likelihood of Zimmer running over his previously allotted time as well as wanting to speak further about the current fiscal crisis and its impact on the University, but this explanation has done little to smooth the ruffled feathers of faculty members and sympathetic community members who were already upset.

In the discussion of the Senate meeting, it is important to keep one thing in mind: As far as the administration is concerned, the Institute has already been created and its inception is not in any way up for discussion. (Although yesterday one member of the MFI’s faculty committee indicated that he would not necessarily be opposed to changing the name of the Institute.) Additionally, the Senate as a whole has no formal decision-making power; rather, its Executive Council is assigned specific duties and given corresponding administrative power. It is unclear what, if any, power these bodies currently have over the MFI, especially given that the original e-mail sent by Zimmer announcing the Institute cited “the recommendations of a faculty committee and discussions with appropriate faculty bodies.”

The Faculty Senate convened at 3:00 today, and its meeting should have concluded by now. Keep an eye on the Maroon’s website for further developments.