Since campus reopened after COVID, Cornell has hosted hundreds of lectures. Two particular talks stand out, and illustrate Cornell’s struggle with free speech and thought.
On November, 9, 2022, Ann Coulter ‘84 was invited by a number of co-sponsoring student organizations to talk about the midterm elections that were held the previous day. Coulter is a nationally prominent political pundit who holds very conservative positions.
Beforehand, campus activists demanded that Cornell rescind Coulter’s invitation, which Day Hall refused. Two students then published an op-ed in the Sun and at least one student organization, the Gender Justice Advocacy Coalition, sent an email to its members asking them to “disrupt” the Coulter talk. The Gender Justice Advocacy Coalition’s executive board signed the email, and the club has a Cornell staff member as its advisor.
On February 2, 2023, Nico Perrino was invited by a similar group of co-sponsoring student organizations to discuss “Why Should We Defend Speech We Hate?” Perrino is Executive Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE has a history of protecting student rights from attacks by either the political left or the right.
In addition to their sponsors, the events bore a startling number of similarities. Both Coulter and Perrino were devoted undergraduate journalists in their day. Both talks were held in the Landis Auditorium in Myron Taylor Hall and required pre-registration to attend. The Coulter talk sold out, but the Perrino talk did not. Many of the audience were no-shows for Coulter, so both spoke to a less than full auditorium, with Perrino’s talk also livecast to a Zoom audience.
Both talks began with the Dean of Students Office reading a reminder to the audience that free expression was protected at Cornell and any disruption would be a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. Then, the Coulter audience immediately began disruptions as she walked to the podium. In contrast, Perrino was introduced and came to the podium without a hitch. As is unfortunately now the norm, both had a uniformed campus police officer present in the back of the hall.
Given that Cornell has punished entire organizations for the actions of leaders in other Student Code violations, it will be interesting to see what sanction Cornell imposes on the organizations that sent emails on Cornell-based listservs to incite Code violations at the Coulter talk.
Perrino attacked the premise that free speech should be infringed upon to protect an audience from ideas that make them uncomfortable. The title of his talk, “Why Should We Defend Speech We Hate?” specifically targets this principle, which is the very principle that the anti-Coulter disruptors chose to act on. However they did not engage whatsoever with the Perrino event, unwilling to defend even this principle with their speech.
Coulter began her talk about the midterm elections and indicated that her remarks would be brief in order to provide ample time for questions and answers. She spoke for a total of five minutes over a 20 minute period with disruptors taking turns interrupting her with shouts of “your words are violence” and “No KKK, no fascist USA.”
Coulter responded to the disruptors by noting, “Usually it’s bush league schools where you get the protesters.” Cornell, until now, had been more “like Harvard” where “they want to challenge you” with Q and A, according to Coulter. Although many in the audience had come prepared to ask Coulter questions, they did not have the chance because Coulter eventually gave up and left. Cornell announced that the event was terminated.
Following the disruption, Coulter posted her reaction on the website of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). Coulter demanded the expulsion of the disruptors lest future students attempt to similarly wield the heckler’s veto.
She said, “The students who prevented me from speaking were not engaging in fiery argument, or any kind of argument at all, but the most anti-intellectual response imaginable: whoopie cushions, screaming, and loud circus music—mocking the very purpose of a university.”
In contrast, Perrino spoke for 40 minutes about free speech on campus and the importance of the free exchange of ideas. Unlike the Coulter event, where one side wanted to bully the speaker and the audience in order to prevent an exchange of ideas, Perrino argued for the importance of all sides being considered to sharpen everyone’s thoughts on a subject.
As he ended, Perrino asked for questions, saying, “Hopefully, there is an opportunity for you to tell me why I am wrong.” Following his prepared talk, Perrino took probing questions for another 35 minutes, and remained for one-on-one discussions after that.
The Coulter disruptors were nowhere to be seen at the Perrino event. If they believed what they were advocating, and sought to curtail free speech to protect audiences from troubling ideas, they should have appeared to question Perrino and make their case. Perhaps they lacked the courage to engage with Perrino on the merits. Or maybe they were put off by the lack of student sympathy for their tactics or deterred by the threat of prosecution under the Student Code.
One gets the sense that the Coulter protest was some kind of role-playing game, with Coulter’s reputation invoking a ritualistic response, even before she could state her current views. Whatever the case, the disruptors’ absence signaled a refusal to engage in campus discourse, even when it directly considers their actions. It is yet another demonstration of their disregard for the value of free discourse and debate.
The disruption of Coulter’s talk hurt Cornell’s reputation and deprived the audience of the opportunity to learn from a Q&A session. Inspired by Perrino’s successful speech, Cornell can and must do better to build a climate of free expression.
