Woodward and others noted the Principles were—and are—guidelines, not precise directions. She recalled, soon after the Principles were established, receiving many inquiries from members of the UChicago community who wanted her to judge what was allowable, including one faculty member who planned to write a piece critical of the University administration.

She told him if he felt the criticism was justified, he should write the piece.

“The very healthy thing about our current campus climate is that people debate [the Principles],” said Woodward, dean of the Division of Social Sciences. “There’s been series of discussions among the faculty about: Well, what do these Principles mean? That is the right way to understand our commitment. It’s not static. It’s not a list of bullet points.”

Stone, who chaired the original UChicago faculty committee, acknowledged that “the standards are in some sense are amibugous, and they can and will be applied differently in different circumstances, both by different institutions and perhaps unfortunately, even in the same institution, depending upon the nature of the speech and the timing and the circumstances.”

The faculty committee members went on to discuss whether free speech and academic expression are a direct path to truth; that disagreements are healthy, and the importance of professors teaching students how to disagree.

“The historic moment we are living in is also reminding us that it’s not just a principle,” said Olinto, “but a real effort we need to keep building with courage and humility about what it means and developing for ourselves, but also for the next generation, the ability to listen across differences as much as we can.”

The challenges of social media

The Principles’ origins date to 2014, when schools and universities across the U.S. were disinviting speakers for espousing unpopular views. Then-UChicago President Robert J. Zimmer created the Committee on Freedom of Expression to articulate the University’s commitment to “free, robust and uninhibited debate and deliberation.”

Since then, new challenges have emerged, including social media and artificial intelligence. In a session on technology and free expression, Princeton University Prof. Zeynep Tufekci, who writes for The New York Times , told UChicago computer science Prof. Nick Feamster that the concentration of social media in three or four dominant platforms is problematic.