The Stanford sit-in versus the Chicago letter, and why one actually works

Look at the protest at Stanford Law last year where students shouted down a federal judge, compared to the University of Chicago's policy of not canceling invited speakers. The Stanford thing was a mess that just made the protestors look bad and got national media calling them bullies. Chicago's approach, where they let the talk happen but allow counter-events, actually forces ideas to compete. After the Stanford incident, donations dipped and the dean had to issue a public apology. The Chicago method has been in place since 2014 and their reputation for free debate only gets stronger. Which tactic do you think actually wins more support from regular people who aren't on campus?

3 comments

3 Comments

taraross12d ago

Yeah, the part about which tactic wins support from regular people off campus... that's the whole thing. The Stanford mess just looked like a bunch of kids having a tantrum to anyone watching the news. Chicago's way, where the talk happens but you can protest outside or hold your own event, looks more like adults dealing with stuff they don't like. It makes the protestors seem stronger, too, because they're putting in the work to make their case instead of just yelling. That quiet, stubborn Chicago policy is what actually changes minds in the long run.

claire87212d ago

Remember that town hall meeting about the new park layout? Honestly, it was a mess at first with everyone shouting. Then a few people, like you said @taraross, just set up their own info table outside with drawings and talked calmly with anyone who walked by. Tbh, by the end, those quiet folks had way more people listening to them than the yelling crowd inside. It's like you have to show your work to get people to trust what you're saying. That stubborn, polite stuff really does wear people down and make them think.

paulw5312d ago

Who knew being boring could be so powerful, right?