Cornell’s Proposed Code of Conduct Changes Threaten Free Speech
In September 2017, Cornell University President Martha Pollack announced the creation of a “Task Force on Campus Climate”. The task force was to be composed of faculty, students, and staff, and was ostensibly designed to foster an environment that is “more diverse and inclusive, and that expresses greater respect and understanding.” The task force was directed to create recommendations for addressing instances of bigotry and intolerance. It was established in response to a student chanting “Build the Wall” that was not illegal under the current Campus Code.
In its final report published in June of 2018, the task force recommended changing the definition of harassment to “Conduct that creates a hostile environment on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, gender identity, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, or marital status.” It further goes on to define a hostile environment as existing “when the conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, limits, or deprives an individual’s participating in or benefiting from the university’s education or employment”.
This new code of conduct would broaden the scope of harassment to include any conduct that creates a hostile environment. As stated by the task force, this is a significantly broader interpretation of harassment than currently exists under New York state law or the current Campus Code. Notably, the changes would also lower the threshold for what constitutes harassment compared to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the task force cites as an inspiration.
The report also stated, “To the extent that the informal norms or the social climate on campus chills conservative students, faculty and staff from expressing their points of view, we are concerned, but we see it as falling mostly outside the scope of this subcommittee’s charge.”
If they were truly concerned, the committee would not have recommended policies that widen the scope of what constitutes punishable speech. Students, faculty, and staff self censor out of fear of either formal prosecution or informal punishment. By expanding and strengthening the mechanisms through which controversial political speech can be punished, the committee is violating the spirit of the first amendment by removing protections for controversial speech.
Under the proposed Student Code, a student wearing a t-shirt that says “Build A Wall”, a popular campaign promise of President Trump, can be accused of targeted harassment of undocumented students. A conservative student advocating for strong national borders should not have to fear punitive action for expressing his or her opinion. Aside from topics of national security and immigration, there are salient cultural debates about societal norms and what constitutes social justice. Under the proposed Student Code, can a student be punished for writing an opinion piece that argues against allowing biological males who identify as women to compete in female sports competitions? Though it may seem like a stretch, there are already many within the academic community that view such speech as oppressive, or even violent.
The task force’s recommendations were under the jurisdiction of the University Assembly (UA), which resisted the changes for over two years. So, in May 2020, the President rejected the UA’s drafts and asked the University Counsel (UC) to write an alternative Student-only Code. That draft goes beyond the Task Force recommendation and would define “harassment” as just about anything that would offend a listener. The draft provides:
“Offensive conduct that does not by itself amount to harassment as defined above may be the basis for educational or other non-punitive interventions to prevent such conduct from becoming harassment if it were repeated or intensified.”
So, even if a student’s speaking is protected by the First Amendment, the student can be subjected to the burden of a Student Code violation judicial proceeding so long as the penalties are “educational” or “non-punitive.” President Pollack is now asking the Board of Trustees to attend a special meeting on December 10 to remove the UA’s jurisdiction over the Code, and end their protection of individual rights. By separating the conduct regulation of students from that of faculty or non-academic staff, Cornell will subject students to a degree of regulation (less due process) that it would never dare apply to faculty or staff. This is too important an issue to sneak through over winter break during a pandemic.
The debate here underscores a debate that is happening not just all over America, but across the West generally. Do we want to remain a society that values and celebrates freedom of speech, or will we allow the forces of cultural Marxism to impose a new tyranny on our lives?
