"Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced its ruling for the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I received several emails about the decision. From Harvard’s president-elect, Claudine Gay, a message of shared grief: 'Today is a hard day, and if you are feeling the gravity of that, I want you to know you’re not alone.' A personal message from a former student: 'Today is a great day in the life of the country.'
"The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers. In that difference lies the corruption at the heart of higher education. Like many universities, Harvard has been striving for a uniformity of prestamped opinions that its incoming president assumes. But Students for Fair Admissions invites us to hope for a pause if not a turning point in that demand for uniformity."
That's how unpopular it is, and yet these administrators still feel emboldened to speak on behalf of the whole university (or even university system) as though their opinion is shared by everyone. Could they possibly be more out of touch?
"The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers."
Spot on. It's the arrogance of ignorance. And the biggest problem with this particular ignorance is that these clowns refuse to test the hypothesis. All they have to do is ask their faculties and students by a blind ballot, plus all the people they've been dunning for years what their opinions are. I can't think of any school with more students and staff than alumni. They certainly know how to reach them.
I have yet to be seriously asked* for my opinion by any of my alma maters. MIT pretended to do that in late 2021 shortly after the Abbott affair debacle, but they tried to do it as a multiple choice question-based discussion period. Most of us were having none of that: we told them that they were asking the wrong questions. They backed right down and asked what questions we thought were right. We told them. And then it was game on.
Take a look at my Substack on the Harvard decision, skipping down to the last section on What Next? https://ericrasmusen.substack.com/p/students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard . I quote a lot from MIT's amicus brief. It seems to me that MIT has admitted in court that violated the Civil Rights Act and suits by anyone denied admission in the past 3 years (statute of limitations?) should be relatively easy. Amicus briefs are dangerous things to write. Check out Chicago's amicus and see if they were equally imprudent.
In support of my contention that the UChicago's brief is consistent with Kalven neutrality, the following essay published in The Atlantic last month did not mention the brief (which Princeton also was a signatory). The essay was published June 15, 2023 and the brief was filed in 2022, so the omission seems intentional. Possibly this could be explained by the author, Robert P. George (a professor at Princeton University and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions) deciding that editorializing on litigation pending before the SCOTUS was inappropriate, but that's pretty meta of me to imagine, and I don't think it's why George doesn't bring up AA in his essay about Kalven neutrality.
He writes...
It is also a strong argument against committing the university and its units to a particular position unless doing so is absolutely necessary. (That would be a rare occurrence, perhaps a state law forbidding universities from hiring people who hold certain views or banning, say, the promotion—or “teaching”—of certain ideas. It would not extend to such matters as the Israel-Palestine dispute; the Ukraine War; abortion; the death penalty; how a jury ought to decide, or ought to have decided, in a criminal or civil trial; marriage and sexual morality; fracking; or whether to defund the police, legalize drugs, move to a single-payer health-care system, or abolish the FBI, etc.—all issues on which departments at Princeton or other nonsectarian institutions have released statements in recent years.)
There is much misunderstanding around this subject, the THE's (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/) US correspondent has been making statements that are composed to create confusion, and anger, around this issue within the usual UK woke circle jerk echo chamber.
I think it's worth considering the possibility that U Chicago's amicus brief was consistent with the principles of the Kalven report. Here's a quote from a link to Robert Zimmer's October 2020 description of the Kalven report which also contains a link to a PDF of it.
"We are at a complex moment in our society, ... At such a moment, particularly with emotions high ..., it is important that we reaffirm key and defining principles of the University...on a related topic, the relationship of the views of individuals, namely faculty, students, and staff, to any particular position the University might take on matters external to the University.
The latter was the core focus of the Kalven Report, a report of a faculty committee that warned against University positions on political and social action, with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University, its commitment to freedom of inquiry and its basic operations."
I think of the Kalven report as reminding Universities to stay in their lanes, but university admissions is a basic UChicago operation, i.e. it is an appropriate exception. Thus there's not a conflict between the UChicago taking a position on the SCOTUS case and the Kalven report.
The author responded to this point explicitly, and I think very convincingly. The University can only take positions on issues that threaten it's core mission (pursuit of truth) and free inquiry. They haven't even tried to make the case that affirmative action does.
UChicago could recuse itself from taking a position on admissions of students, but it need not recuse itself based on the principles in the Kalven report which states, "The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge." Your paraphrase "pursuit of truth" inaccurately and unnecessarily limits the mission. The "dissemination of knowledge" includes teaching students and is as basic to the operation of the University as anything could be.
My point is that the essay misapplies the Kalven report. I disagree with you that the essay addresses this point well, because it misses the exception built into the Kalven report. An essay about "Kalven neutrality" need not argue either side of the issue: it would suffice to show that UChicago took a side, either side, in an issue *out of its lane*. But admissions is very much in UChicago's lane. Kalven neutrality would be a valid criticism, for example, if UChicago had submitted a brief in Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage).
If UChicago was punishing or censoring professors or students who agreed with the SCOTUS majority on AA, then invoking Kalven neutrality would be more palatable, but better in that case would be to cite the Report of the Faculty Committee on Freedom of Expression (also linked in Zimmer's letter that I cited).
Approximately 360 words into an 1100 word essay, the sentence appears, "Furthermore, the position the administration is advocating is disgraceful." The rest of the essay is about that topic: basically agreeing with the plaintiffs and the SCOTUS majority, and disagreeing with the UChicago position and the dissenters on the SCOTUS.
I am not taking a position either way: instead, my view is that the Kalven Report does not apply in this case.
"with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University, its commitment to freedom of inquiry and its basic operations"
It is reasonable to note that the mission, free inquiry, and teaching and learning are what basic operations refer to. It is not reasonable to assume that they refer to admissions, nor janitorial services, nor the swimming pool, nor or any other pet bias.
I don't know about that. Honestly I think the statement this post is based on is milquetoast and not particularly offensive, but there does seem to be a bit of tension when it comes to what types of diversity matter. For example, in the announcement you linked a situation within the English department was brought up:
"Representative of these actions was the recent English Department announcement that for the 2020-21 admissions cycle the Department would accept applications for admission to the doctoral program only from students 'interested in working in and with Black Studies.'"
Note that this isn't the Black Studies department, this is the English department. Then in the announcement that is the subject of this post it says:
"We consider diversity to be a strength – and, indeed, foundational to our academic success. Advancing rigorous inquiry requires welcoming a diversity of perspectives and ideas, as well as a diversity of life experiences."
Mobilizing an entire department to focus on and admit only those interested in issues pertaining to a specific racial group, to the exclusion of other English-related interests, seems to fly in the face of an embrace of diversity on various levels. It says, "we welcome diversity [within a very narrow area of scholarship]. If you are not interested in exploring this specific facet of diversity, don't expect to become a graduate student here". This is diversity in the same sense that "allowing a wide variety of opinions as long as they're along the spectrum of far-left to center left" would be considered diverse.
Zimmer addressed your point with "Viewed in this light, it is no different from a History Department deciding to emphasize American history or a Law School deciding to emphasize international law. Indeed, from that perspective, the English Department’s action can be viewed as an important manifestation of academic freedom." I might agree with you if the English Dept planned to limit its admissions to a particular topic indefinitely, but it was specifically for the 2020-21 cycle. Just like Zimmer, I see this as the prerogative of the department: in my own field, a physics and astronomy department might invite applications in the 2023-2024 cycle "only from those interested in working in extrasolar planets." It saves everyone time and effort for calls for applications to be as specific as they can be, consistent with the desires of the selection committee, which usually throws in some wiggle room like, "Exceptional candidates in any field should apply anyhow..." which always makes me smile ironically.
I have to disagree with your interpretation here, but I'm not sure whether it's a genuine disagreement or one based on semantics. I read the linked announcement in full, and thought while reading it that the part you quoted isn't actually analogous to the English example.
The English admissions statement quoted above appears in my estimation to be a categorical choice, whereas the later part that you quoted above uses "emphasize", which isn't categorical but rather incremental. Please tell me if you interpret it differently, but the way the English department's decision is phrased, using the word "only", and being carried out on the admissions level, indicates to me that if (for example) you are indigenous, have a strong passion for English, but would like to focus on the indigenous experience in your studies (thus bringing in diversity of experience) you would not be the right fit and would not be admitted.
By making the decision on the admissions level I don't believe the later example of an "emphasis" on American history is analogous to what's going on in English. If there were simply an emphasis on American history, that does not indicate that a desire to focus mainly on some other field or era would exclude you from being admitted to that history program.
If it isn't the case that a student not particularly interested in black studies would be overlooked in admissions, then the part I quoted should really be rephrased to avoid confusion. When you say that you will ONLY consider applicants interested in Black Studies that doesn't at all sound the same as "we will emphasize Black Studies". Later on you have an example of physics mentioning wiggle room and exceptions, but nothing in the president's statement indicates that that's the case in this English -> Black Studies example.
As far as your physics/astronomy example is concerned, is that something you've seen happen? I'm not asking because I don't believe it, I simply don't know. My field is chemistry, and it usually goes something like this: Each professor has their own specific research focuses. These focuses have little to do with the admissions process, as the students are simply expected to have a strong chemistry foundation, indicated by their undergrad performance and perhaps the GRE, and to have written a strong cover letter. When they arrive at the school they spend the first semester learning about the various professors and their research groups, which usually fall within particular focuses, for example organic, inorganic, physical, nano, analytical, or biochemistry. Usually students already have a good idea what area they would like to focus on and gravitate toward faculty in those focuses. They narrow their selection down to a few faculty, and then express interest in joining their group. When they join, it's usually the case that they work with the faculty to develop a research plan, either joining an ongoing project or coming up with something within the umbrella of the faculty's focus. There is some filtering that happens here, but it doesn't have to do with desires of the faculty but rather their area of expertise/competence. A biochemistry professor isn't likely to take on a new student who wants to do a research project involving building analytical equipment, because that would make more sense under the direction of an analytical chemistry professor. Note, however, that all of this specialization happens AFTER the student is admitted. Many students don't even know what they want their focus to be by this point. More broadly, a focus on "students interested in organic chemistry" would make no sense in my discipline, because it would exclude the expertise of the majority of the professors. It may be different in physics/astronomy, but I can't imagine limiting admissions to people interested in one facet of the discipline wouldn't limit free expression in some way, and on a more practical level it seems a great waste of expertise, unless all of the existing faculty happen to be experts in extrasolar planets. If that IS the case, in my opinion that's not a very robust department.
U of Chicago has over 50 English faculty. English can be many things, but by choosing one thing (Black Studies) and making it THE thing, to the point where students won't even be admitted if they want to study something else, by its nature is going to shut down many debates before they start.
Finally, I really don't see much meaning in the distinction you made pertaining to whether this admissions choice is indefinite. What is indefinite? How many years would be considered indefinite? For students applying to many schools for the 2020-2021 cycle this choice is effectively indefinite as it pertains to their chances of getting in to U of Chicago if they (for example) are indigenous and find that their passion for English involves Ojibwe folklore and they have no great interest in Black Studies. I mean, I guess they could just lie and say that they are interested in Black Studies. I'm not sure that's a recipe for a meaningful college experience, though.
I linked Zimmer's 2020 letter primarily because it included a link to the Kalven report, which the original essay didn't provide, like one might reference Newton's Principia without providing a link or full citation. I admit that I didn't even read the part about the English dept, until after you brought it up. I guess maybe we'll just agree to disagree on the English Dept issue: Zimmer's letter outlines the issue well, I'd say, providing two different interpretations.
My example about exoplanets is from memories of specific faculty job advertisements, not related to admissions of students. But if I was an admin, I would give a Department the freedom to make its own decisions in either case, although I'd advise against it, generally speaking, for the reasons you discuss. I'd agree that it would be stranger to limit a single cycle's graduate admissions in this way than a single faculty search.
My comment about the wiggle room was meant to satirize the targeted searches that also include that caveat, because including such a caveat defeats much of the benefit of narrowing the search in terms of saving effort of so many applicants and the search committee. It also allows a cabal on the search committee to twist the original intent of the search to its own purposes, "I know we advertised for an exoplanet expert, but we think we should hire X (our ol' buddy) in condensed matter instead."
Various higher-ups in the California system gave similar public statements, despite the fact that this ruling doesn't even apply to them.
There was a recent WSJ article that really hit the nail on the head, in my opinion (https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-stages-of-grief-over-affirmative-action-sffa-court-higher-ed-87dd642a) Here's how it starts:
"Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced its ruling for the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I received several emails about the decision. From Harvard’s president-elect, Claudine Gay, a message of shared grief: 'Today is a hard day, and if you are feeling the gravity of that, I want you to know you’re not alone.' A personal message from a former student: 'Today is a great day in the life of the country.'
"The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers. In that difference lies the corruption at the heart of higher education. Like many universities, Harvard has been striving for a uniformity of prestamped opinions that its incoming president assumes. But Students for Fair Admissions invites us to hope for a pause if not a turning point in that demand for uniformity."
What I really don't get is how oblivious promoters of Affirmative Action are to its unpopularity. The majority of Americans, including the majority of whites, asians, blacks, and hispanics, are against using race in admissions (https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2022/05/02/poll-finds-public-doesnt-favor-affirmative-action). In California, one of the most progressive states in the Union, it's so unpopular as to be banned for decades. The 2020 CA prop 16, which tried to bring back Affirmative Action, went down in flames, despite the fact that those in favor of the proposition outspent those opposed by a factor of 15 (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)).
That's how unpopular it is, and yet these administrators still feel emboldened to speak on behalf of the whole university (or even university system) as though their opinion is shared by everyone. Could they possibly be more out of touch?
"The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers."
Spot on. It's the arrogance of ignorance. And the biggest problem with this particular ignorance is that these clowns refuse to test the hypothesis. All they have to do is ask their faculties and students by a blind ballot, plus all the people they've been dunning for years what their opinions are. I can't think of any school with more students and staff than alumni. They certainly know how to reach them.
I have yet to be seriously asked* for my opinion by any of my alma maters. MIT pretended to do that in late 2021 shortly after the Abbott affair debacle, but they tried to do it as a multiple choice question-based discussion period. Most of us were having none of that: we told them that they were asking the wrong questions. They backed right down and asked what questions we thought were right. We told them. And then it was game on.
* Sorry for splitting the infinitive....
Excellent comment!
Take a look at my Substack on the Harvard decision, skipping down to the last section on What Next? https://ericrasmusen.substack.com/p/students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard . I quote a lot from MIT's amicus brief. It seems to me that MIT has admitted in court that violated the Civil Rights Act and suits by anyone denied admission in the past 3 years (statute of limitations?) should be relatively easy. Amicus briefs are dangerous things to write. Check out Chicago's amicus and see if they were equally imprudent.
In support of my contention that the UChicago's brief is consistent with Kalven neutrality, the following essay published in The Atlantic last month did not mention the brief (which Princeton also was a signatory). The essay was published June 15, 2023 and the brief was filed in 2022, so the omission seems intentional. Possibly this could be explained by the author, Robert P. George (a professor at Princeton University and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions) deciding that editorializing on litigation pending before the SCOTUS was inappropriate, but that's pretty meta of me to imagine, and I don't think it's why George doesn't bring up AA in his essay about Kalven neutrality.
He writes...
It is also a strong argument against committing the university and its units to a particular position unless doing so is absolutely necessary. (That would be a rare occurrence, perhaps a state law forbidding universities from hiring people who hold certain views or banning, say, the promotion—or “teaching”—of certain ideas. It would not extend to such matters as the Israel-Palestine dispute; the Ukraine War; abortion; the death penalty; how a jury ought to decide, or ought to have decided, in a criminal or civil trial; marriage and sexual morality; fracking; or whether to defund the police, legalize drugs, move to a single-payer health-care system, or abolish the FBI, etc.—all issues on which departments at Princeton or other nonsectarian institutions have released statements in recent years.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/university-statements-political-issues-abortion-princeton/674390/
George's essay is good reading; that's enough from me. Thanks to the anonymous author for a thought-provoking essay.
There is much misunderstanding around this subject, the THE's (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/) US correspondent has been making statements that are composed to create confusion, and anger, around this issue within the usual UK woke circle jerk echo chamber.
Yep.
I think it's worth considering the possibility that U Chicago's amicus brief was consistent with the principles of the Kalven report. Here's a quote from a link to Robert Zimmer's October 2020 description of the Kalven report which also contains a link to a PDF of it.
"We are at a complex moment in our society, ... At such a moment, particularly with emotions high ..., it is important that we reaffirm key and defining principles of the University...on a related topic, the relationship of the views of individuals, namely faculty, students, and staff, to any particular position the University might take on matters external to the University.
The latter was the core focus of the Kalven Report, a report of a faculty committee that warned against University positions on political and social action, with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University, its commitment to freedom of inquiry and its basic operations."
https://president.uchicago.edu/from-the-president/announcements/100520-kalven-report
I think of the Kalven report as reminding Universities to stay in their lanes, but university admissions is a basic UChicago operation, i.e. it is an appropriate exception. Thus there's not a conflict between the UChicago taking a position on the SCOTUS case and the Kalven report.
The author responded to this point explicitly, and I think very convincingly. The University can only take positions on issues that threaten it's core mission (pursuit of truth) and free inquiry. They haven't even tried to make the case that affirmative action does.
Dorian,
UChicago could recuse itself from taking a position on admissions of students, but it need not recuse itself based on the principles in the Kalven report which states, "The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge." Your paraphrase "pursuit of truth" inaccurately and unnecessarily limits the mission. The "dissemination of knowledge" includes teaching students and is as basic to the operation of the University as anything could be.
My point is that the essay misapplies the Kalven report. I disagree with you that the essay addresses this point well, because it misses the exception built into the Kalven report. An essay about "Kalven neutrality" need not argue either side of the issue: it would suffice to show that UChicago took a side, either side, in an issue *out of its lane*. But admissions is very much in UChicago's lane. Kalven neutrality would be a valid criticism, for example, if UChicago had submitted a brief in Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage).
If UChicago was punishing or censoring professors or students who agreed with the SCOTUS majority on AA, then invoking Kalven neutrality would be more palatable, but better in that case would be to cite the Report of the Faculty Committee on Freedom of Expression (also linked in Zimmer's letter that I cited).
Approximately 360 words into an 1100 word essay, the sentence appears, "Furthermore, the position the administration is advocating is disgraceful." The rest of the essay is about that topic: basically agreeing with the plaintiffs and the SCOTUS majority, and disagreeing with the UChicago position and the dissenters on the SCOTUS.
I am not taking a position either way: instead, my view is that the Kalven Report does not apply in this case.
"with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University, its commitment to freedom of inquiry and its basic operations"
It is reasonable to note that the mission, free inquiry, and teaching and learning are what basic operations refer to. It is not reasonable to assume that they refer to admissions, nor janitorial services, nor the swimming pool, nor or any other pet bias.
I don't know about that. Honestly I think the statement this post is based on is milquetoast and not particularly offensive, but there does seem to be a bit of tension when it comes to what types of diversity matter. For example, in the announcement you linked a situation within the English department was brought up:
"Representative of these actions was the recent English Department announcement that for the 2020-21 admissions cycle the Department would accept applications for admission to the doctoral program only from students 'interested in working in and with Black Studies.'"
Note that this isn't the Black Studies department, this is the English department. Then in the announcement that is the subject of this post it says:
"We consider diversity to be a strength – and, indeed, foundational to our academic success. Advancing rigorous inquiry requires welcoming a diversity of perspectives and ideas, as well as a diversity of life experiences."
Mobilizing an entire department to focus on and admit only those interested in issues pertaining to a specific racial group, to the exclusion of other English-related interests, seems to fly in the face of an embrace of diversity on various levels. It says, "we welcome diversity [within a very narrow area of scholarship]. If you are not interested in exploring this specific facet of diversity, don't expect to become a graduate student here". This is diversity in the same sense that "allowing a wide variety of opinions as long as they're along the spectrum of far-left to center left" would be considered diverse.
Zimmer addressed your point with "Viewed in this light, it is no different from a History Department deciding to emphasize American history or a Law School deciding to emphasize international law. Indeed, from that perspective, the English Department’s action can be viewed as an important manifestation of academic freedom." I might agree with you if the English Dept planned to limit its admissions to a particular topic indefinitely, but it was specifically for the 2020-21 cycle. Just like Zimmer, I see this as the prerogative of the department: in my own field, a physics and astronomy department might invite applications in the 2023-2024 cycle "only from those interested in working in extrasolar planets." It saves everyone time and effort for calls for applications to be as specific as they can be, consistent with the desires of the selection committee, which usually throws in some wiggle room like, "Exceptional candidates in any field should apply anyhow..." which always makes me smile ironically.
Hello Peter,
I have to disagree with your interpretation here, but I'm not sure whether it's a genuine disagreement or one based on semantics. I read the linked announcement in full, and thought while reading it that the part you quoted isn't actually analogous to the English example.
The English admissions statement quoted above appears in my estimation to be a categorical choice, whereas the later part that you quoted above uses "emphasize", which isn't categorical but rather incremental. Please tell me if you interpret it differently, but the way the English department's decision is phrased, using the word "only", and being carried out on the admissions level, indicates to me that if (for example) you are indigenous, have a strong passion for English, but would like to focus on the indigenous experience in your studies (thus bringing in diversity of experience) you would not be the right fit and would not be admitted.
By making the decision on the admissions level I don't believe the later example of an "emphasis" on American history is analogous to what's going on in English. If there were simply an emphasis on American history, that does not indicate that a desire to focus mainly on some other field or era would exclude you from being admitted to that history program.
If it isn't the case that a student not particularly interested in black studies would be overlooked in admissions, then the part I quoted should really be rephrased to avoid confusion. When you say that you will ONLY consider applicants interested in Black Studies that doesn't at all sound the same as "we will emphasize Black Studies". Later on you have an example of physics mentioning wiggle room and exceptions, but nothing in the president's statement indicates that that's the case in this English -> Black Studies example.
As far as your physics/astronomy example is concerned, is that something you've seen happen? I'm not asking because I don't believe it, I simply don't know. My field is chemistry, and it usually goes something like this: Each professor has their own specific research focuses. These focuses have little to do with the admissions process, as the students are simply expected to have a strong chemistry foundation, indicated by their undergrad performance and perhaps the GRE, and to have written a strong cover letter. When they arrive at the school they spend the first semester learning about the various professors and their research groups, which usually fall within particular focuses, for example organic, inorganic, physical, nano, analytical, or biochemistry. Usually students already have a good idea what area they would like to focus on and gravitate toward faculty in those focuses. They narrow their selection down to a few faculty, and then express interest in joining their group. When they join, it's usually the case that they work with the faculty to develop a research plan, either joining an ongoing project or coming up with something within the umbrella of the faculty's focus. There is some filtering that happens here, but it doesn't have to do with desires of the faculty but rather their area of expertise/competence. A biochemistry professor isn't likely to take on a new student who wants to do a research project involving building analytical equipment, because that would make more sense under the direction of an analytical chemistry professor. Note, however, that all of this specialization happens AFTER the student is admitted. Many students don't even know what they want their focus to be by this point. More broadly, a focus on "students interested in organic chemistry" would make no sense in my discipline, because it would exclude the expertise of the majority of the professors. It may be different in physics/astronomy, but I can't imagine limiting admissions to people interested in one facet of the discipline wouldn't limit free expression in some way, and on a more practical level it seems a great waste of expertise, unless all of the existing faculty happen to be experts in extrasolar planets. If that IS the case, in my opinion that's not a very robust department.
U of Chicago has over 50 English faculty. English can be many things, but by choosing one thing (Black Studies) and making it THE thing, to the point where students won't even be admitted if they want to study something else, by its nature is going to shut down many debates before they start.
Finally, I really don't see much meaning in the distinction you made pertaining to whether this admissions choice is indefinite. What is indefinite? How many years would be considered indefinite? For students applying to many schools for the 2020-2021 cycle this choice is effectively indefinite as it pertains to their chances of getting in to U of Chicago if they (for example) are indigenous and find that their passion for English involves Ojibwe folklore and they have no great interest in Black Studies. I mean, I guess they could just lie and say that they are interested in Black Studies. I'm not sure that's a recipe for a meaningful college experience, though.
Hi Organiker,
I linked Zimmer's 2020 letter primarily because it included a link to the Kalven report, which the original essay didn't provide, like one might reference Newton's Principia without providing a link or full citation. I admit that I didn't even read the part about the English dept, until after you brought it up. I guess maybe we'll just agree to disagree on the English Dept issue: Zimmer's letter outlines the issue well, I'd say, providing two different interpretations.
My example about exoplanets is from memories of specific faculty job advertisements, not related to admissions of students. But if I was an admin, I would give a Department the freedom to make its own decisions in either case, although I'd advise against it, generally speaking, for the reasons you discuss. I'd agree that it would be stranger to limit a single cycle's graduate admissions in this way than a single faculty search.
My comment about the wiggle room was meant to satirize the targeted searches that also include that caveat, because including such a caveat defeats much of the benefit of narrowing the search in terms of saving effort of so many applicants and the search committee. It also allows a cabal on the search committee to twist the original intent of the search to its own purposes, "I know we advertised for an exoplanet expert, but we think we should hire X (our ol' buddy) in condensed matter instead."