VFTG Issue 52: Looking Back on 25 Years of View From the Ground by Guest User

February 27, 2026

Last year, the Invisible Institute launched View from the Ground archive as a publicly accessible digital collection.

We will be sharing excerpts of reporting and photography from our archive, documenting the final chapter of Chicago’s high rise public housing, on social media. One example is The Writing on the Wall: A Love Letter which was originally published in View from the Ground on March 28, 2002. It offers a brief glimpse into the highs and lows of a relationship, preserved on the brick in Stateway Gardens. 

Produced between 2001 and 2007 by our founder Jamie Kalven, photographer Patricia Evans, and technologist David Eads, View from the Ground documented life in Stateway Gardens during the Plan for Transformation—the demolition of public housing high-rises and the forced displacement of thousands of residents. From 2016 to 2019, View from the Ground was relaunched in the wake of the police murder of Laquan McDonald and the subsequent U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the Chicago Police Department.

As part of last year’s release, we made public a curated collection of more than 80 black-and-white photographs by Patricia Evans, created between 1994 and 2007 at Stateway Gardens.

Our archive relaunch has included engagement opportunities for wider audiences to view the work. We partnered with the National Museum of Public Housing to host a discussion on the 25th anniversary Plan for Transformation. We also partnered with Black Archives, an online repository celebrating Black archival photography, to bring the VFTG photos and stories to their audience. We look forward to continuing the community engagement work to share the archives online and out in the world.

View from the Ground continues as a monthly newsletter, sharing updates on our work, reflections from staff, and analysis of the evolving landscape of justice and accountability in Chicago and beyond.

View from the Ground Vol. 3 Issue 51: Federal Agents in Minneapolis by Guest User

January 30, 2026
A letter from Jamie Kalven:


I wrote the following essay in mid-November toward the end, at least for the moment, of “Operation Midway Blitz,” the occupation of Chicago by Border Patrol and ICE agents. Two and a half months later, it has in certain respects been overtaken by events–above all, the federal siege of Minneapolis and large-scale civil disobedience by that city’s residents. In other respects, those events have sharpened its central theme: the indivisibility of fundamental constitutional rights.

It has been said that history doesn’t repeat itself but that it sometimes rhymes. The killing by federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti–white U.S. citizens–in the midst of a merciless assault on immigrants in the city where police murdered George Floyd is such a time. 
 

“Even in the darkest of times,” Hannah Arendt once wrote, “we have the right to expect some illumination.” She went on to observe that “such illumination may well come less from theories and concepts than from the uncertain, flickering, and often weak light that some men and women, in their lives and in their works, will kindle under almost all circumstances.”

Those words resonate in our dark times. For three months this fall, masked Border Patrol and ICE agents in battle gear conducted immigration raids in neighborhoods across Chicago. Their stated mission was to make those neighborhoods safe by apprehending “the worst of the worst”–undocumented violent criminals who prey on those who live here. The reality was a chaotic dragnet operation of indiscriminate racial profiling and a theater of cruelty. When community members came into the streets to protest, they were routinely met with tear gas and pepper spray. 

From the perspective of the Trump regime, these actions are not abuses. They are the mission. They send the intended message. When an interviewer on “60 Minutes” asked the president whether ICE raids “had gone too far”—--citing incidents in Chicago in which agents threw a young mother to the ground, used tear gas in residential neighborhoods and smashed car windows–he replied, “I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by judges.”

Elected officials and the civil rights bar have indeed seized every opportunity to bring legal challenges, and federal district judges have resoundingly affirmed fundamental constitutional guarantees of due process and freedom of speech and assembly. This robust legal response is rooted in no small part in the arguments, history of practice, and working relationships developed over many years of collective effort to advance police accountability and transparency in Chicago, work in which the Invisible Institute has been deeply involved. 

For the moment, the siege of Chicago has relented. The future is uncertain. Will a greatly enlarged federal force return in the spring, as promised by the Department of Homeland Security? Will legal constraints prove enforceable, in view of the fact that federal agents on Chicago streets repeatedly and openly violated the terms of an injunction imposed by a federal judge?

Despite these uncertainties, the vigorous judicial articulation of constitutional principles has been heartening. Even more heartening–a source of flickering illumination amid the growing darkness–has been the way Chicago residents in neighborhoods across the city have defended those principles in action by attempting to protect their neighbors and to bear witness to the abuses committed by federal agents. 

Neighbors have reached out to neighbors to create rapid response networks, develop mutual aid strategies, and establish autonomous communication channels for sharing information. This dynamic process has opened up space for civic imagination and generated continuous innovation in tactics of community self defense.

The symbol of such neighborhood-based resistance is the whistle. Widely distributed across the city and now worn by many residents, whistles are blown when Border Patrol and ICE agents are sighted. The resulting sound has layered eloquence. It is an alert, an expression of care, and a protest that this is not normal and cannot be allowed to become normal.

The mobilization of neighbors, propelled by moral clarity that what they are witnessing is simply wrong, suggests the possibility that there may emerge a broad and diverse movement in defense of human dignity. At the same time, it should give us pause to recognize that comparable abuses by law enforcement have long been tolerated when they are committed in those areas of the city cordoned off by our form of racial apartheid.

The journalistic practice that gave birth to the Invisible Institute began twenty-five years ago in late stage high-rise public housing, where we regularly documented misconduct by police akin to that committed by ICE and Border Patrol agents today: gross violations of due process, warrantless searches, indiscriminate sweeps, egregious excessive force (often practiced as sport), incommunicado detention, massive corruption, undisguised racism and gratuitous cruelty–all committed with an air of impunity and shrouded in secrecy. 

In its final phase, high-rise public housing was the epitome of hypersegregation and racial disparities in policing: the extreme case that makes visible the larger phenomenon of unconstitutional policing in disfavored neighborhoods that the Invisible Institute continues to investigate in an effort to better understand how state violence perpetuates inequality. Yet somehow those human rights violations, no matter how thoroughly documented, have long been normalized. 

I raise this not to diminish in any way the profound decency of neighborhood-based resistance to Border Patrol and ICE  but rather to highlight the possibility that those energies will mature into a mass movement–a movement of neighbors–grounded in the conviction that basic human rights are indivisible. As we navigate an uncertain future, that possibility deepens our understanding of the Invisible Institute’s mission and nourishes our resolve to produce work that provides flashes of illumination in dark times.

Chicago Promoted Two Police Officers After Investigators Found They Engaged in Sexual Misconduct by Guest User

One of Chicago’s newest police sergeants had been deemed “unfit to serve” after an investigation uncovered evidence that he created a fake Facebook account and spread a nude photo of a woman he was sexually involved with, then lied to investigators about it. 

Another new sergeant had been found to have engaged in conduct that “seriously undermines public faith, credibility, and trust in the Department” after he was accused of sexual assault and domestic violence. 

The conclusions were made by independent investigators from the Civilian Office of Police Accountability. COPA recommended firing both. The first officer ultimately negotiated a one-year suspension and was assigned to supervise officers downtown and in the West Loop. The second officer’s case is still pending; he was assigned to supervise officers patrolling neighborhoods on the city’s South Side.

The officers’ promotions this spring were not due to an oversight. Department officials knew about their disciplinary records, but those records could not be considered as the department evaluated their fitness for promotion. 

The main qualifying factor was their test scores from a two-part exam.

That Chicago police officers can rise in the ranks in spite of significant problems in their records  reflects a decadeslong failing that the Chicago Police Department has been repeatedly called on to fix, an investigation by the Invisible Institute and ProPublica found.

This investigation was produced in partnership with the Invisible Institute and ProPublica, and co-published with the Chicago Sun-Times.

View from the Ground Vol. 3 Issue 50: Chicago Promoted Two Police Officers After Investigators Found They Engaged in Sexual Misconduct by Guest User

December 9, 2025 

A note from reporter María Inés Zamudio:

Last week, we published the second installment in our investigative series into sexual assault and misconduct complaints lodged against Chicago Police Officers.  

We featured two Chicago police officers who were investigated for sexual misconduct — then promoted. Sgt. Ernesto Guzman-Sanchez was accused of spreading a nude photo of a woman he knew. And Sgt. Christopher Lockhart was found responsible for acts of domestic violence and sexual assault. Investigators with the Civilian Office of Police Accountability recommended the officer be fired. Guzman-Sanchez negotiated a one year suspension while Lockhart’s case is still pending. Both were promoted in the Spring in spite of their disciplinary records. The officers denied allegations to investigators and did not respond to requests for comment.

The promotions were not an oversight. Despite a decades-long reform effort, the Chicago Police Department rarely considers disciplinary records when promoting officers. About 70% of promotions are determined based solely on how officers score on an exam. 

This reporting is a collaboration with ProPublica and you can read the story on their website. The story was also co-published with the Chicago Sun-Times.

CPD declined to comment for this story. But, during an August hearing, Superintendent Larry Snelling said discipline should be considered during the promotions process. In a statement, Mayor Brandon Johnson said he plans to work with Snelling and prioritize reforming policies.

“We must take a close look at the current promotion policies and make the necessary reforms so that we are promoting the best of our officers to set a strong example,” the mayor said.

Our team is continuing to review investigative files. This reporting would not be possible without previous litigation to allow disciplinary records to be open to the public. Those lawsuits include Bond v. Uterus, Green v. Chicago Police Department and Kalven v. Chicago, which was brought by Jamie Kalven, our founder, and led to the publishing of police misconduct complaints on the Civic Police Data Project site.

We’re continuing to report on this issue. If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault or misconduct by Chicago Police, we want hear from you. You can call me at (312) 434-0916.

Stay tuned for more reporting in the series in 2026.

María Inés Zamudio
Investigative Reporter

Feds Used Chemical Weapons On Chicagoans At Least 49 Times — Even After Judge Said To Stop by Guest User

José* was inside his Brighton Park home with his wife María* and their pets on Oct. 4 when the smell of tear gas overwhelmed him.

“The gas seeped in and we started choking, so I said, ‘[Get] the bird and the cat,’” María said. (José and María are pseudonyms we are using due to concerns about retribution.)

Tear gas, thrown in the middle of a residential block by federal agents, seeped into their home through the air-conditioning vents and the old, unsealed windows. It quickly spread throughout the first floor, filling the living room, dining room and kitchen with toxic fumes.

Their house was among several in Brighton Park that were engulfed in tear gas after federal agents threw canisters during an hours-long standoff with Chicagoans.

“I had never felt such fear,” José said. “I’ve lived in Chicago for 40 years, and it’s the first time I’ve seen anything like this. To live it firsthand, it feels awful.”

The tear gas that blanketed the block was part of an unprecedented wave of chemical weapons deployed on Chicago’s streets during Operation Midway Blitz.

An investigation by a group of Chicago-area newsrooms and independent journalists found that federal agents used tear gas and pepper spray at least 15 times in Brighton Park on Oct. 4 — more than the Chicago Police Department has used all year.

A close review of the Oct. 4 protests shows federal agents repeatedly using tear gas and pepper spray, often appearing to escalate encounters with nonviolent protesters.

The events of Oct. 4 also helped establish a pattern of force by federal agents. Our investigation found that federal agents used chemical weapons on protesters at least 49 times across 18 incidents across Chicago and the suburbs since Oct. 1. Federal agents have used chemical irritants at least 30 times since a judge placed restrictions on their use of tear gas and pepper spray.

This investigation was co-produced by Invisible Institute, Block Club Chicago, Cicero Independiente, Race & Equity Project, South Side Weekly, and The Triibe.

View from the Ground Vol. 3 Issue 49: Federal Agents in Chicago Used Tear Gas At Least 49 Times by Guest User

November 19, 2025

Today, we published an investigation into federal agents’ use of chemical weapons, documenting 49 uses of chemical weapons across 18 incidents since early October. Our reporting found that most of the chemical deployments targeted peaceful protesters and that federal agents regularly used tear gas and pepper spray to escalate encounters with Chicagoans exercising their First Amendment Rights.

The reporting was a partnership with newsrooms across Chicago, with six outlets contributing to the reporting and nine helping collect tips as part of a shared tipline meant to track use of force by federal agents and create a shared public record of federal actions in Chicago. You can read the story in Block Club Chicago, South Side Weekly, The Triibe, Investigative Project on Race and Equity Project, Borderless, Cicero Independiente, and the Chicago Reader.

Our reporting found that the widespread use of tear gas in Chicago neighborhoods has no precedent in recent memory. Chicago Police have not used any chemical weapons on protesters in five years. Meanwhile, federal agents used tear gas and pepper spray at least 15 times responding to a single protest in Brighton Park on October 4th. Agents fired pepper balls at peaceful crowds, threw tear gas canisters at small groups of demonstrators, and tossed gas from moving vehicles as they drove out of the neighborhood.

Agents have operated under a temporary restraining order limiting their use of riot control weapons since October 9. On November 6, U.S. District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis issued a temporary injunction forbidding federal agents from using riot control weapons, including tear gas, unless it’s necessary to stop someone from physically harming another person. The order is part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of Block Club Chicago and other media organizations, seeking to protect the First Amendment rights of journalists and peaceful protesters.

Since then, federal agents have used chemical weapons at least four times, including two cases where agents appeared to fire pepper spray out of a moving vehicle directly into another moving car, possibly violating both the injunction and Border Patrol rules restricting chemical weapon uses on motorists. 

As we continue to collaboratively document and report, we encourage you to spread the word about how to submit video evidence to our shared tipline: email chicagojournalists@protonmail.com or visit tinyurl.com/chicagojournalists

VFTG Vol 3 Issue 48: Free Speech Is Under Attack by Guest User

October 31, 2025

An excerpt from Jamie Kalven's op-ed for The Chicago Tribune, "The president is using a civil rights-era tactic to suppress free speech."

Where is the line between “democracy” and “fascism”? Since President Donald Trump’s return to power nine months ago, that question has been posed again and again in response to the latest affront to human dignity, common sense and/or constitutional norms committed by his administration.

Arguably, however, this is the wrong question in that it assumes there is some precise threshold beyond which we cease to be free. Those who have experienced fascist takeovers elsewhere warn that if we insist on a definitive answer to that question, we will only belatedly realize that the walls have closed in around us. The danger is that we will drift — disoriented, unmoored, bewildered — into the iron cage of tyranny.

While there may be no red line from which to take our bearings, recent events have pulled back the curtain on the nature and trajectory of the Trump regime’s fascist project. In their haste to exploit the murder of Charlie Kirk, Trump and senior members of his team have revealed their contempt for fundamental First Amendment principles.

[...]
 

Sixty years ago, my father Harry Kalven Jr., a constitutional scholar, coined the term “heckler’s veto” to describe a situation in which those hostile to a speaker’s message seek to suppress it by threatening disorder. If the police restore order by silencing the speaker, they give the heckler a veto over public discussion. Censorship is thus achieved by a circuitous process.

The context in which my father developed the heckler’s veto concept was the Civil Rights Movement of the early 1960s, when those engaged in nonviolent protests against segregation in the South were often met by hostile crowds. Local authorities would then use the threat of disorder as a rationale for suppressing the protests.

On several occasions during that era, the federal government, over the objections of Southern governors, deployed federal troops to protect those exercising their constitutional rights. Among the photographs that illuminate that moment, one is especially telling: the image of 6-year-old Ruby Bridges entering a previously all-white elementary school, accompanied by U.S. marshals, while hostile white people jeer and heckle.

Today, the federal government is the heckler. Its military interventions in Chicago and in other targeted cities do not seek to maintain order and protect the constitutional rights of the vulnerable. Rather, at the direction of the heckler-in-chief, they are designed to provoke disorder that can then be seized upon as a rationale for declaring a state of emergency and suppressing dissent.

This theater of cruelty — masked federal agents terrorizing migrant families and brazenly attacking protesters and journalists — is not a matter of misconduct by the officers involved. On the contrary, they are delivering the message the administration intends to send.

In this respect, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement television commercial seeking to recruit local officers that has recently been airing in Chicago is revealing. “You took an oath to protect and serve, to keep your family, your city safe. But in sanctuary cities, you’re ordered to stand down while dangerous illegals walk free,” the ad declares. “ Join ICE, and help us catch the worst of the worst.” The subtext is clear: Join us and be relieved of constitutional constraints and the nuisance of accountability. Enjoy impunity.

[...]

The terms of engagement are thus daunting. They are also clear. It is up to us all —elected officials, civil society, the press — to defend First Amendment freedoms by exercising them in the place where we live. Challenges abound: for protesters, to maintain nonviolent discipline; for public officials, to hold their ground in the face of economic retaliation; for police and military, to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution when given clearly unconstitutional orders; and for the press, to remain agile and work together to bear witness to events on the ground.

In meeting the moment, we can take heart from historian Hannah Arendt’s distinction between violence and power, which she saw as opposites. Power arises when people act together for a common purpose, as Chicagoans have been doing across the city by confronting ICE, providing legal and material aid to those targeted by the federal dragnet, and building networks for sharing information. Seen in isolation, these efforts may be small-scale and intensely local, but in the aggregate, they are building capacity for civil resistance. Violence, by contrast, is purely instrumental. It can destroy power but not create it. It is an expression of impotence. Only people acting in concert can generate power.

The president is using a civil rights-era tactic to suppress free speech by Guest User

Jamie Kalven for the Chicago Tribune

October 12, 2025

Where is the line between “democracy” and “fascism”? Since President Donald Trump’s return to power nine months ago, that question has been posed again and again in response to the latest affront to human dignity, common sense and/or constitutional norms committed by his administration.

Arguably, however, this is the wrong question in that it assumes there is some precise threshold beyond which we cease to be free. Those who have experienced fascist takeovers elsewhere warn that if we insist on a definitive answer to that question, we will only belatedly realize that the walls have closed in around us. The danger is that we will drift — disoriented, unmoored, bewildered — into the iron cage of tyranny.

While there may be no red line from which to take our bearings, recent events have pulled back the curtain on the nature and trajectory of the Trump regime’s fascist project. In their haste to exploit the murder of Charlie Kirk, Trump and senior members of his team have revealed their contempt for fundamental First Amendment principles.

The president has ruminated about the possibility of making it a crime to criticize him. Multiple voices in the administration have demanded punishment for anyone who speaks of Kirk in less than reverential terms. Calling for a crusade against the forces of “evil” and “wickedness,” Trump’s chief of staff Stephen Miller has conjured a vast left-wing “domestic terror network.” Vice President JD Vance has said it is exemplified by the Nation magazine and the Open Society Institute founded by George Soros. (Full disclosure: I am a Nation contributor and have been an Open Society fellow. So if you are curious about the face of terrorism, according to the administration, I’m your guy.)

The “us versus them” logic of fascism is voracious. We have seen the category of “the enemy within” rapidly expand from MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members to the majority of the population that dissents from the MAGA-certified state ideology.

What has been revealed in recent weeks is ugly but deeply familiar. We have seen it before, and we have seen effective resistance to it. What is critical at this juncture is to be clear about the nature of the threat. Even with a supine Congress and compliant Supreme Court, it is unlikely the administration could effectively repeal the First Amendment by turning seditious libel (criticism of the government) and blasphemy into

crimes. Rather, it has adopted a transparent strategy of seeking to provoke civil disorder in order to justify crushing dissent.

Sixty years ago, my father Harry Kalven Jr., a constitutional scholar, coined the term “heckler’s veto” to describe a situation in which those hostile to a speaker’s message seek to suppress it by threatening disorder. If the police restore order by silencing the speaker, they give the heckler a veto over public discussion. Censorship is thus achieved by a circuitous process.

The context in which my father developed the heckler’s veto concept was the Civil Rights Movement of the early 1960s, when those engaged in nonviolent protests against segregation in the South were often met by hostile crowds. Local authorities would then use the threat of disorder as a rationale for suppressing the protests.

On several occasions during that era, the federal government, over the objections of Southern governors, deployed federal troops to protect those exercising their constitutional rights. Among the photographs that illuminate that moment, one is especially telling: the image of 6-year-old Ruby Bridges entering a previously all-white elementary school, accompanied by U.S. marshals, while hostile white people jeer and heckle.

Today, the federal government is the heckler. Its military interventions in Chicago and in other targeted cities do not seek to maintain order and protect the constitutional rights of the vulnerable. Rather, at the direction of the heckler-in-chief, they are designed to provoke disorder that can then be seized upon as a rationale for declaring a state of emergency and suppressing dissent.

This theater of cruelty — masked federal agents terrorizing migrant families and brazenly attacking protesters and journalists — is not a matter of misconduct by the officers involved. On the contrary, they are delivering the message the administration intends to send.

In this respect, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement television commercial seeking to recruit local officers that has recently been airing in Chicago is revealing. “You took an oath to protect and serve, to keep your family, your city safe. But in sanctuary cities, you’re ordered to stand down while dangerous illegals walk free,” the ad declares. “ Join ICE, and help us catch the worst of the worst.” The subtext is clear: Join us and be relieved of constitutional constraints and the nuisance of accountability. Enjoy impunity.

Over the last decade, the front line of civil rights activism has been the struggle for police accountability — for a more humane and equitable system of public safety. Similarly, declaring Chicago a sanctuary city is an expression of care for and solidarity with our neighbors. These civic aspirations are now under siege. In contrast to the federal interventions of the 1960s in support of those working to desegregate the Jim Crow South, we now confront a white supremacist regime seeking to undo the limited but real achievements of pluralism and tolerance.

While there is reason to hope that legal challenges to federal intervention and to ICE practices will ultimately prevail, it is important to recognize that we confront a rogue regime that has contempt for the rule of law and is in the process of building a massive paramilitary force answerable only to the president.

The terms of engagement are thus daunting. They are also clear. It is up to us all —elected officials, civil society, the press — to defend First Amendment freedoms by exercising them in the place where we live. Challenges abound: for protesters, to maintain nonviolent discipline; for public officials, to hold their ground in the face of economic retaliation; for police and military, to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution when given clearly unconstitutional orders; and for the press, to remainagile and work together to bear witness to events on the ground.

In meeting the moment, we can take heart from historian Hannah Arendt’s distinction between violence and power, which she saw as opposites. Power arises when people act together for a common purpose, as Chicagoans have been doing across the city by confronting ICE, providing legal and material aid to those targeted by the federal dragnet, and building networks for sharing information. Seen in isolation, these efforts may be small-scale and intensely local, but in the aggregate, they are building capacity for civil resistance. Violence, by contrast, is purely instrumental. It can destroy power but not create it. It is an expression of impotence. Only people acting in concert can generate power.

The great Irish poet Seamus Heaney, who was well acquainted with sectarian violence, said it best: “What looks the strongest has outlived its term. The future lies with what’s affirmed from under.”

Editor's Note: Federal Agents Storm South Shore Building, Detaining Families and Children by Guest User

October 7, 2025

A note from reporter Maira Khwaja:

A week ago, I woke up to news about an ICE raid of a building in South Shore, the neighborhood immediately south of our office. Just a few days earlier, a friend asked me if we should expect to see ICE in our part of the South Side. The de facto segregation of Chicago can feel so entrenched at times that it can be easy to assume, sometimes, that violence in one part of the city won’t be felt in others. 

This ICE raid on a 130-unit building in South Shore was the first of its kind in Chicago. Nearly 300 federal agents raided the building in the middle of the night, evacuating the residents, and zip-tieing dozens of people -- including citizens, and barely-clothed children and babies -- for hours on the sidewalk and in vans. The Department of Homeland Security says it arrested 37 people, including four children. One source who works at the elementary school across the street from the building shared, in our latest story with the South Side Weekly, that at least two of their students lived there, and that the school has not been able to locate them since. 

A predominantly Black neighborhood, South Shore is often cited as a neighborhood with the highest rate of eviction filings in Chicago. The state provided limited rental assistance in 2024 to many newly arriving immigrants from Venezuela and elsewhere, to be housed in buildings like this property at 7500 S South Shore Dr., as the city closed its migrant shelters. This building is mired in controversy, as Wells Fargo Bank brought a $27 million lawsuit last year against the owner, who appears to have abandoned it. 

When I walked through the building a few hours after the raid, to find it empty with fresh boot prints still on the kicked down apartment doors, I was reminded of details of police abuse in high rise public housing in its final era of demolition. The elevators were broken; water seemingly leaked everywhere; the smell of mold became nauseating. I know of the similarities only through documentation in the first edition of View from the Ground by Jamie Kalven and Patricia Evans, in which residents of public housing often reported inhumane housing conditions, abandoned by City management, along with warrantless raids, destruction of property, unlawful detainment and arrest. Police abuse with impunity in our city has long been connected to deep poverty and neglected housing.

The past few weeks have felt nothing short of a federal occupation in Chicago, putting the entire city on high alert about a roaming extralegal force that sees itself above due process and our first amendment rights. On Saturday, September 27, Steve Held, a reporter at Unraveled Press, was arrested while covering protests outside of Broadview Detention Center, after a week of federal agents shooting pepper balls and rubber bullets at press and protestors there. On Wednesday, agents were filmed choking a Black man on the west side of Chicago and conducting a raid outside a homeless shelter in Bronzeville to arrest four people. On Friday, immigrant advocacy groups alerted communities about the launch of a possible ICE operation called “Freaky Friday” that is targeting minors who arrived in the U.S. alone without their parents. Also on Friday, agents in Logan Square threw tear gas a block from an elementary school as bystanders protested them in traffic, and handcuffed Ald. Jessie Fuentes in Humboldt Park Hospital. On Saturday, a federal agent shot a civilian in traffic multiple times in Brighton Park, and another body slammed and cracked the skull of a bystander observing ICE.

Chicagoans are finding creative ways to rapidly respond and stand up for their neighbors: through honking, filming, volunteering to deliver groceries, supporting street vendors, attending ICE watch training, and yelling alerts when federal agents are present. The Saturday evening Held was arrested, ten newsrooms including the Invisible Institute worked together rapidly to issue a joint statement calling for his release (he was released early Sunday morning). On Monday, October 6, a group of protestors and journalists filed a First Amendment suit against the Trump administration. And, the City of Chicago and State of Illinois sued the Trump administration and the United States Army for deploying the Texas national guard to Chicago.

The Invisible Institute continues to work with other local newsrooms to report on use of force by federal agents. 

As we go deeper into this harrowing era, the way forward is clear: meet your neighbors, document what you observe, and practice your freedom of speech. Expanding our understanding of who our neighbors are, and insisting upon upholding each others’ rights, will be the way we hold on to ourselves.

Undercover Minnesota officers suing oversight board have public LinkedIns, discipline and shootings by Maira Khwaja

Sam Stecklow for the Sahan Journal

Read the full story here.

September 24, 2025

A professional organization representing Minnesota police officers is suing a state licensing agency after the names of 257 undercover officers were disclosed to media outlets alongside other officers’ names. But research shows that all but three of them have been previously identified publicly, usually by themselves or their departments.

The police officers have LinkedIn profiles. They have photos posted by their agencies on Facebook or in press releases to celebrate promotions and drug busts. They testify in open court about their arrests. Some of them have been involved in high-profile uses of force, or have been sued for civil damages. 

And all 257 of them should have their names hidden from the public, according to court filings by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA). 

[…]

The data on Minnesota police employment history was sought by journalists working as a collaborative to collect police certification and employment history data across the country. The first requests were made in 2022 and 2023 by reporters with American Public Media Research Group and Invisible Institute. POST responded that it could only reproduce data kept in its own license lookup tool, which only includes the current employer of officers and not any of their previous agencies. (The MPPOA later alleged that those releases, too, included officers marked as undercover.)

The collaborative sought the assistance of Tony Webster, a local investigative journalist and law student, who filed a new request with POST seeking police employment history data and negotiated the release of the full employment history data, which POST told him had undercover officers removed. Webster then shared the data with Invisible Institute and other local journalists in Minnesota. 

In January, Invisible Institute released the data on a tool called the National Police Index, which houses data from over two dozen of POST’s peer agencies around the country. Developed by Invisible Institute, Human Rights Data Analysis Group, and Innocence & Justice Louisiana, the NPI seeks employment history data from state POST agencies to track, among other questions, the issue of so-called “wandering cops” who move from department to department after committing misconduct. 

After a story was published by the Star Tribune about the launch of the database in Minnesota, a police officer noticed an undercover officer was present in the data and notified the MPPOA, according to a declaration filed in court by Merrick.

In Minnesota, the POST board did not have the authority to revoke an officer’s license unless they had committed a felony or certain misdemeanors until 2023; therefore, as the Star Tribune previously reported in 2017, many officers with criminal or other misconduct histories have historically been able to maintain their licenses and find work at another agency. POST’s employment history data is the one place in the state where this information is centrally kept.

After MPPOA notified POST that the data it released to Webster included undercover officers, Invisible Institute removed it from the National Police Index, and replaced it with another file provided by POST that had the undercover officers removed. POST also requested that Invisible Institute destroy the files previously released.

Invisible Institute does not intend to publish any names of officers MPPOA claims are undercover beyond those in this story. It is not, however, under any legal obligation to destroy the data that had previously been released, and possession of the two files allowed reporters to identify the officers MPPOA claims are undercover and analyze their online presences.

VFTG Vol 3 Issue 47: On the Federal Occupation of Chicago by Guest User

October 7, 2025

A note from reporter Maira Khwaja:

A week ago, I woke up to news about an ICE raid of a building in South Shore, the neighborhood immediately south of our office. Just a few days earlier, a friend asked me if we should expect to see ICE in our part of the South Side. The de facto segregation of Chicago can feel so entrenched at times that it can be easy to assume, sometimes, that violence in one part of the city won’t be felt in others. 

This ICE raid on a 130-unit building in South Shore was the first of its kind in Chicago. Nearly 300 federal agents raided the building in the middle of the night, evacuating the residents, and zip-tieing dozens of people -- including citizens, and barely-clothed children and babies -- for hours on the sidewalk and in vans. The Department of Homeland Security says it arrested 37 people, including four children. One source who works at the elementary school across the street from the building shared, in our latest story with the South Side Weekly, that at least two of their students lived there, and that the school has not been able to locate them since. 

A predominantly Black neighborhood, South Shore is often cited as a neighborhood with the highest rate of eviction filings in Chicago. The state provided limited rental assistance in 2024 to many newly arriving immigrants from Venezuela and elsewhere, to be housed in buildings like this property at 7500 S South Shore Dr., as the city closed its migrant shelters. This building is mired in controversy, as Wells Fargo Bank brought a $27 million lawsuit last year against the owner, who appears to have abandoned it. 

When I walked through the building a few hours after the raid, to find it empty with fresh boot prints still on the kicked down apartment doors, I was reminded of details of police abuse in high rise public housing in its final era of demolition. The elevators were broken; water seemingly leaked everywhere; the smell of mold became nauseating. I know of the similarities only through documentation in the first edition of View from the Ground by Jamie Kalven and Patricia Evans, in which residents of public housing often reported inhumane housing conditions, abandoned by City management, along with warrantless raids, destruction of property, unlawful detainment and arrest. Police abuse with impunity in our city has long been connected to deep poverty and neglected housing.

The past few weeks have felt nothing short of a federal occupation in Chicago, putting the entire city on high alert about a roaming extralegal force that sees itself above due process and our first amendment rights. On Saturday, September 27, Steve Held, a reporter at Unraveled Press, was arrested while covering protests outside of Broadview Detention Center, after a week of federal agents shooting pepper balls and rubber bullets at press and protestors there. On Wednesday, agents were filmed choking a Black man on the west side of Chicago and conducting a raid outside a homeless shelter in Bronzeville to arrest four people. On Friday, immigrant advocacy groups alerted communities about the launch of a possible ICE operation called “Freaky Friday” that is targeting minors who arrived in the U.S. alone without their parents. Also on Friday, agents in Logan Square threw tear gas a block from an elementary school as bystanders protested them in traffic, and handcuffed Ald. Jessie Fuentes in Humboldt Park Hospital. On Saturday, a federal agent shot a civilian in traffic multiple times in Brighton Park, and another body slammed and cracked the skull of a bystander observing ICE.

Chicagoans are finding creative ways to rapidly respond and stand up for their neighbors: through honking, filming, volunteering to deliver groceries, supporting street vendors, attending ICE watch training, and yelling alerts when federal agents are present. The Saturday evening Held was arrested, ten newsrooms including the Invisible Institute worked together rapidly to issue a joint statement calling for his release (he was released early Sunday morning). On Monday, October 6, a group of protestors and journalists filed a First Amendment suit against the Trump administration. And, the City of Chicago and State of Illinois sued the Trump administration and the United States Army for deploying the Texas national guard to Chicago.

The Invisible Institute continues to work with other local newsrooms to report on use of force by federal agents. 

As we go deeper into this harrowing era, the way forward is clear: meet your neighbors, document what you observe, and practice your freedom of speech. Expanding our understanding of who our neighbors are, and insisting upon upholding each others’ rights, will be the way we hold on to ourselves.
 

Maira Khwaja
Director of Public Strategy
Invisible Institute

Shadow Arrests: When a Call for Help Turns Into Involuntary Commitment by Guest User

Illustration by Kailey Ryan

The Chicago Police Department handles over a hundred mental health-related incidents every day. Some end in arrests, some may lead to voluntary transport to medical facilities and some end with no action taken at all.

Our latest investigation with MindSite News and South Side Weekly shows officers are increasingly turning to a more controversial option: forced hospitalization, detaining people against their wishes at a hospital emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation.

VFTG Vol 3 Issue 46: Forced Psychiatric Hospitalizations by Guest User

September 2, 2025

A note from reporter Dana Brozost-Kelleher:

On August 29, the Invisible Institute and MindSite News published an investigation that found Chicago Police officers are increasingly turning to forced hospitalizations when responding to mental health-related incidents–a controversial option that involves detaining people against their wishes at a hospital emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation. 

You can read the story in a special issue of South Side Weekly, which includes a package of stories by student journalists from Medill Investigative Lab-Chicago, examining the city’s mental health and crisis response systems. You can also find the story on MindSite News’ website.  

Reporters from Invisible Institute and MindSite News have been investigating this story for more than two years. We analyzed data from the Chicago Police Department on its handling of mental health-related incidents and found that between 2023 and 2024, the first years for which comprehensive data is available, the number of police-initiated hospitalizations increased from 1,764 to 2,319 — an increase of more than 30%. During these years, more than 20% of mental health calls responded to by Chicago Police resulted in an officer deciding to forcibly hospitalize someone.

In total, police have involuntarily hospitalized people for psychiatric reasons at least 6,700 times since 2021, according to our analysis. 

Our reporting explores not only how often police were deciding to forcibly hospitalize Chicagoans — more than six a day in 2024 — but also the impact this practice has on people in distress who are detained by police officers with minimal mental health training, and who are provided with little information about the alternatives to arrest and hospitalization that exist in the city. We found these encounters are often violent and traumatizing and can lead to negative long-term outcomes for those forcibly hospitalized. 

Despite longstanding concerns about the ways that Chicago Police respond to people experiencing mental health crises, the department didn't collect data on officer-initiated involuntary hospitalizations until recently. There is also no state body that tracks this information, making it difficult to track the prevalence and outcomes of these cases. 

This story is particularly timely now. Both the Trump administration and some Democratic governors — though not Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker — are seeking to expand the use of involuntary hospitalization as a way to respond to perceived increases in crime and visibly unhoused individuals. Law enforcement are often the tip of the spear of that approach. But, like Illinois, few states track much information about law enforcement's use of their power to involuntarily hospitalize an individual based on their own judgment, experience, and training — whatever that might be.

Dana Brozost-Kelleher 
investigative reporter

Invisible Institute reporters Sam Stecklow, Dana Brozost-Kelleher, and Isabelle Senechal produced this story along with Medill externs Jenna Mayzouni, Allende Miglietta, and Stephana Ocneanu. We collaborated on this investigation with Josh McGhee from MindSite News. 

In Memory of Ken Dunn by Maira Khwaja

Ken Dunn at the Resource Center, by Patricia Evans for University of Chicago Magazine, 1991

Our longtime supporter and friend of the organization, Ken Dunn, passed away in October 2024. He played a significant role in the origins of the Invisible Institute at Stateway Gardens, and in the creation of our home at the Experimental Station. This summer, Jamie Kalven shared these words at his memorial:

Remembering Ken, I find myself thinking about the mystery of influence. He has been one of the most significant and enduring influences on my life. Looking out at this gathering, I know the same is true for many others. I imagine his influence as a root system, radiating outward, largely subterranean and out of sight, but essential and nourishing, binding us to one another as we honor his life today.

I first got to know Ken thirty-five years ago, when I wrote a magazine profile of him. On the basis of several extended conversations, I told the story of the Kansas farmer who came to the University of Chicago, by way of a Peace Corps stint in Brazil, to study philosophy, then found his true vocation in reimagining and re-engineering the waste stream as a strategy of social transformation.

In one of our conversations, he recalled making multiple trips to Washington D.C., in the 1960s to demonstrate against the Vietnam War. Increasingly frustrated by mass protests in which one is, as he put it, “only a body rather than a mind who could actually demonstrate the reasonableness of his position,” he decided to reorient his efforts. That was the conceptual birth of the Resource Center, which he often described as an educational institution dedicated to demonstrating the practical effectiveness of resource recovery through–another of Ken’s favorite terms–“the rhetoric of action.”

After the article appeared, our conversation continued, as it would over three decades. Before long, he offered me a job working with him to figure out how the various tools the Resource Center had assembled–trucks, front-end loaders, piles of compost, and so on–could be used to build community. For several years, we co-directed a program of vacant lot reclamation that Ken christened “Turn A Lot Around.” (The name proved a tongue-twister for some of those we worked with in South Side neighborhoods who referred to the program as “Turn Around A Lot.”)

At the heart of the program were work days during which volunteers from around the city would join with neighborhood residents to recover vacant lots for community use. The work was infused with a kind of barn-raising spirit, as participants reclaimed the joy of doing physical work side by side with their neighbors. 

It produced not only gardens, parks and playgrounds on what had been abandoned lots, but also enduring friendships, love affairs, and at least one marriage. Perhaps most important, it generated energy for ongoing inquiry. 

To work with Ken was intellectually as well as physically strenuous, for he never ceased to be a philosopher asking fundamental questions. A man of strong convictions that sometimes verged on fundamentalist certainty, he was also deeply curious, hungry for dialogue, and open to experiment.

It was a dynamic that drove innovation and made him a remarkably generative force in the world. In my case, he helped me spin off from the Resource Center and form an employment program for gang-affiliated young men in public housing called the Neighborhood Conservation Corps. The NCC in turn cultivated the web of relationships that ultimately enabled the Invisible Institute to do reporting deeply informed by local knowledge. Today when the Invisible Institute’s work has been, somewhat improbably, acknowledged by multiple Pulitzer Prizes and the like, it’s important to make known that it all originated working with Ken on vacant lots and talking into the night about how to nurture social change. My debt to him is incalculable.

My story is but one of many that could be told of Ken’s intellectual companionship and patronage. Some common themes of those stories perhaps would be the importance of remaining grounded, of deeply inhabiting one’s place in the world, and of recognizing everyday life as a domain in which one can exercise personal responsibility for the world.

In a dark time, the illumination offered by Ken’s life is precious. He didn’t so much bequeath a teaching or a doctrine or a manual as he left us a noble model of a life well lived. His influence continues.

June 21, 2025

VFTG Vol 3 Issue 45: In Remembrance of Brandi Collins-Dexter by Guest User

July 31, 2025

We are so saddened to announce the death of our collaborator, the writer, researcher, and advocate Brandi Collins-Dexter. In our time working together on a new podcast, Brandi inspired us with her deep commitment to media justice, sharp perspective of history, and singular voice. We will miss her brilliance and her friendship dearly. 

A note from Yohance Lacour:

Brandi was more than “unapologetically Black” – that term means we’ve been treated as being Black is something you have to apologize for, so she’s unapologetic – that was baseline for her. She treated Blackness as the default. She wasn’t just not apologizing, she was pushing. She believed that no justice was possible without media justice, without narrative justice. She pursued the stories that mattered, that were dear to her, and she didn’t do this for money. 

Brandi had come to grips with how oppressed we are, with how horrible the world can really be, and managed to be critically thoughtful. She was able to build with that rage, and still retain her heart. She went out fighting. She was also just getting started. 

She listened to podcasts, and we shared playlists and music. She had great soul, and she had beautiful taste in music. She was sweet. She was very brilliant and honest, not just in her words but her actions. She was about to walk away from a corporate gig because it was going to take a lot of money from one of these villains, and so she threatened to leave and they didn’t take the money. She wasn’t compromising on her values.

In my last conversation with her, she said: “They told me I had years, and then they told me I had months, and then they told me I had weeks, and then they told me I had days.” You look for words to say but there’s nothing to look for. I asked, what can I do? She said, “tell this fucking story.” So that’s what we did – we talked about our project. I thought we’d talk again. Her sister answered and said she couldn’t talk, but she could hear. I told her I grew up listening to Tupac, and that he said in an interview once: “I'm not saying I'm gonna change the world, but I guarantee that I will spark the brain that will change the world.” What I told her is that I’m experiencing what that really means from her. I told her she moved the needle. And we’re going to keep pushing the needle. 

Chicago Keeps Controversial Police Promotion List Secret by Guest User

Verónica Martinez / Injustice Watch

The Chicago Police Department’s “merit” promotions have elevated officers with a history of misconduct—including fatal shootings and excessive force. Our latest investigation reveals how CPD’s controversial promotion system continues to reward officers with troubling records, while the city keeps the public in the dark. Officer John Poulos violated CPD policy and fatally shot two unarmed Black teens. Instead of facing consequences, he was promoted.

The City of Chicago hasn’t released a single official merit promotion list in eight years, despite promising transparency. Today, anonymous blogs are the only public source of information about who’s receiving these promotions. Officers linked to excessive force, wrongful raids, and misconduct during the 2020 protests have all benefited. Our investigation was co-published with the Chicago Reader and Injustice Watch.

Help Us Report on Sexual Assault and Misconduct by the Chicago Police Department by Maira Khwaja

The Invisible Institute published an investigation that found a pattern of the Chicago Police Department failing to vigorously investigate accusations of sexual assault  by officers. Our analysis of police records show that claims were often downplayed or ignored, sometimes allowing officers to abuse again and again.

This reporting is a collaboration with ProPublica and you can read the story on their website. It was also published in the Chicago Sun-Times and online.

Our reporting team, which included Isabelle Senechal, Maheen Khan, and Andrew Fan, spent a year reviewing more than 300 complaints accusing Chicago police officers of sexual assault and misconduct stretching back to the early 2000s. 

This analysis identified 14 officers who may be repeat offenders, having been accused of sexual assault in the last decade in addition to at least one other incident of sexual misconduct. Five of those officers faced criminal charges and were convicted, in some cases pleading to a lesser offense. Three have ongoing criminal cases. Our reporting highlighted CPD’s internal investigations of two officers: former officer Eric Tabb, who is accused of five instances of sexual misconduct involving other recruits and a probationary officer, and former officer Corey Deanes, who faced allegations from four women who encountered him on the job. 

The Chicago Police Department declined our requests for an interview but said in a statement, that it “takes all allegations of sexual assault seriously, including allegations against CPD members.”

This investigation was built upon our data director trina reynolds-tyler’s groundbreaking Beneath the Surface project, which uses community-driven machine learning to identify patterns of misconduct hidden in police complaint files. trina’s work first identified that police sexual misconduct claims were mislabeled and under-reported, helping prompt this investigation.

We wrote this story to explore the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual misconduct by CPD officers and to examine how the department handles these complaints. This is an underexplored topic and, when it does surface in the news, it's typically the most egregious cases – making it easy to blame a single cop instead of scrutinizing the department’s wider culture. 

Reporting this story was not easy. Reviewing these investigative files was incredibly taxing work because it required reading hundreds of pages describing sexual violence. But this approach was necessary to illustrate the spectrum of sexual misconduct and the impact of not treating these cases seriously.

This reporting would not be possible without previous litigation to allow disciplinary records to be open to the public. Those lawsuits include Bond v. Uterus, Green v. Chicago Police Department and Kalven v. Chicago, which was brought by Jamie Kalven, our founder, and led to the publishing of police misconduct complaints on our Civic Police Data Project site.

This is the first story in a series. We’re continuing to report on this issue. If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault or misconduct by Chicago Police, we want hear from you. 

View from the Ground Vol. 3 Issue 44: Celebrating Juneteenth by Guest User

June 26, 2025

Our data director, trina reynolds-tyler, gave the Juneteenth keynote last week at the National Public Housing Museum. Her speech reflects on how big promises—like freedom or new public policy—often come without real follow-through, leaving impacted communities to deal with the confusion, delays, and fallout on their own. Below is an excerpt from her remarks.

“[Juneteenth teaches us that] to declare freedom is not enough. Freedom requires integrity—a plan to bring people together, to unite the whole—with honesty, transparency, and accountability. But too often, what we see instead is a history of public policies that claim to improve society, yet come with no guarantees and ask people to remain quiet and wait for a check that may never come. 

Slavery Remembered is the first major attempt to analyze the slave narratives gathered as part of the Federal Writers’ Project. Paul Escott’s examination of nearly 2,400 narratives and his quantitative analysis of the narratives as a whole present the differing beliefs and experiences of masters and slaves. This analysis shows that nearly immediately the narratives about the laziness of Black people began to spawn in that moment; justifying whatever damage slaveholders would do to continue to violate their human rights.  

As we stand in the National Museum of Public Housing, I would be remiss if I didn't speak on the Plan for Transformation, and its parallels with this particular moment in time.

At the start of the Transformation, disseminating and receiving accurate, up-to-date information was challenging for both residents and staff. Years of mismanagement and poor service had also resulted in low levels of trust in the information shared and commitments made by the Chicago Housing Authority. Also ​​due to bureaucratic errors, CHA lost track of many of the public-housing residents whose homes were demolished. The people scattered.

In the case of the Civil War, there were rumors that the Yankees were killing slaves; sowing the idea that people should be afraid, and accept what suffering they already knew. For some, they didn't trust what the future held. If they were to look at the past to determine the future, it was unclear. There was no blueprint. Once finally relieved from their enslavement; the labor fell on them to make move.

[...] Although it’s more challenging to read and process the narratives of formerly enslaved people recorded shortly after emancipation, we can learn a great deal about the broader Plan for Transformation by examining the stories found in police misconduct records and other public archives. These narratives—while imperfect—have become more accessible and structured over time, as documentation of human rights abuses has grown.

We have yet to fully acknowledge what has passed and the impact these decisions have had on people that reverberate within our communities today. 

While we still don’t have a full picture of the impact of the environment shaped by that Plan, my colleagues at the Invisible Institute and I have worked tirelessly to bring these stories to light."

Wisconsin is in the minority of states shielding police data. We’re suing to change that. by Guest User

AG is withholding information about “wandering officers”

The Milwaukee Police Administration Building in downtown Milwaukee. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

Since 2017, Wisconsin policing regulators have tracked what they call “flagged officers”: cops who get fired, resign in lieu of a termination, or resign before an investigation into alleged misconduct can be completed.

The regulators, with the Law Enforcement Standards Board (LESB), were prompted by a series of reports on officers accused of sexual assault and dishonesty who had been able to get rehired — including as a police chief — with little oversight from the state. 

“What we’re trying to do is eliminate the opportunity for somebody to slip through the cracks,” the chair of the LESB said at the time, referring to a phenomenon often called “wandering officers.”

Seven years in, it’s difficult to see what has changed: Because flagged officers can still be hired, they often are — and at an increasing rate, according to recent reporting. And because the flagged officers list is limited to only some officers who were disciplined or resigned, there is still potential for additional officers with histories of misconduct to have slipped through the cracks to new agencies undetected.

At the same time, total law enforcement staffing has continued to drop as departments face what they term a hiring “crisis.” This has prompted at least one local expert to raise concern that the hiring shortage could allow for more “wandering officers” to be hired to fill empty positions.

Unfortunately it’s impossible to fully understand the scale of the problem in Wisconsin. That’s because the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), which houses the LESB, refuses to release the state’s full police certification and employment data. That puts Wisconsin in a small minority of states — just 14 — that have denied access to this information, according to a nationwide reporting project. Over 30 states have released certification data — including Wisconsin’s neighbors Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota.

Now, Invisible Institute, a nonprofit public accountability journalism organization based in Chicago, and our co-plaintiff The Badger Project, have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the DOJ’s denial of this basic information.

Full story.

Jamie Kalven op-ed in the Chicago Tribune: Is it time for the University of Chicago to abandon cherished neutrality and join the fight? by Jamie Kalven

Sunday, February 2, 2025
Republished from Chicago Tribune commentary

Activists face off with University of Chicago police after a pro-Palestinian encampment was raided by officers May 7, 2024. (Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune)

The University of Chicago is marking the 10th anniversary of the 2015 restatement by a faculty committee of the school’s commitment to free speech values known as the “Chicago Principles.” This celebration is a somber occasion, for intellectual freedom is under siege on multiple fronts, presenting higher education with challenges that are likely to test foundational values as never before.

The U. of C. describes its free speech ethos as a tradition extending back to its founding and reaffirmed at various junctures in its history. A key moment in that history is a 1967 report on “the university’s role in political and social action” by a faculty committee chaired by my late father, Harry Kalven Jr., a law professor and First Amendment expert. 

Known as the Kalven Report, the document sets forth the policy — the “presumption” — that universities as institutions should not take positions on the issues of the day. “The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student,” it states. “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” When a university takes a position on a political issue, so the argument goes, it inhibits the intellectual freedom of those within the institution who disagree with that position. 

The Kalven Report has been much in the news since the campus protests last spring calling for divestment from Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the ensuing Israeli onslaught. More than 25 institutions have adopted policies of “institutional neutrality” modeled on it, in the hope of avoiding the debacles that unfolded on campuses where university leadership was besieged by irate students, faculty, donors and members of Congress. 

Although I do not recall discussing the report with my father, I have intimate knowledge of his thinking about issues of intellectual freedom at the time he drafted it. After his death, I spent years immersed in his papers, completing a book on the First Amendment he was working on when he died. (Titled “A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America,” it was published in 1988.) 

Perhaps the best single expression of his orientation at the time of the Kalven Committee is an article he wrote several years earlier on New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court decision that found “the central meaning of the First Amendment” in the proposition that criticism of government cannot be made a crime in the United States. He hailed the decision as “a happy revolution in free speech doctrine” and in the years that followed often quoted the Supreme Court’s felicitous formulation that debate on public issues should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” 

His papers leave little doubt that those were the values he intended the report to serve. Its history over the decades since, however, has been more complicated. The document begins with a modest statement to the effect that it is intended as “a point of departure” for discussion by the university community. Perhaps it is simply the nature of bureaucracies, but the report almost immediately hardened into institutional dogma, invoked again and again, in the view of its critics, not to ensure space for vigorous discussion about possible exceptions that would overcome the presumption against collective action but to shut such discussion down.

The upshot is that a significant number of students and faculty have come to regard it as a tool of censorship rather than a guarantor of free speech. 

With the election of President Donald Trump, the state of play has now radically shifted. In view of what has transpired during his first 10 days in office, it’s clear his administration will bring to bear maximum pressure on higher education to enforce ideological conformity and to punish dissent. It has formidable tools for doing so — chief among them, the withholding of federal funds essential to research and operations unless various conditions are met, legal challenges and public humiliations such as were meted out last spring to several university presidents by legislative committees. It is critically important to see this for what it is: a multipronged censorship regime that strikes at the “central meaning of the First Amendment” — the freedom to criticize government — and at the essence of academic freedom.

Read in this context, the distribution of emphasis in the Kalven Report now falls on this passage: “From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” 

These words are unequivocal. They state an obligation, a moral imperative. The university today, however, is a significantly different institution than it was when they were written. It is less a community of scholars who have a measure of meaningful participation in self-governance than a corporation, heavily reliant on government funding and mega-donors, in which power is concentrated in the office of the president/CEO and many faculty, students and staff feel disenfranchised. These changes in the character of the university give the Trump administration and major donors with political agendas leverage to impose their will. 

The paradox of freedom of speech is that it’s like the air we breathe — essential to life but easily taken for granted. Sometimes, repression has the effect of illuminating and making palpable the thing itself. Such moral clarity can provide a basis for resistance and solidarity. The question is: What are universities prepared to risk in defense of their most essential values?

That question is particularly pointed in the case of the U. of C. Will its promotion of freedom of expression and inquiry prove in the end to have been a marketing strategy that can be discarded in the face of harsh political realities? Or will the university assume a leadership role by demonstrating what it means, in the words of the Kalven Report, “to defend its interests and its values” against threats to “the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry”?

I don’t presume to know the answers to those questions. I know only that the stakes are high and our fidelity to the principles we claim to live by will be severely tested.

Jamie Kalven is founding executive director of the Invisible Institute, which was awarded two Pulitzer Prizes in 2024. His reporting first brought the police murder of Laquan McDonald case to public attention.