Faculty Senate Discusses Prof. Russell Rickford

On November 8, the Faculty Senate discussed the free speech controversy surrounding the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and subsequent war over Gaza.

Although the Faculty Senate last met on October 11, that meeting’s agenda was set before the attack, so that meeting focused upon Cornell’s admission policy.

On Oct 15, History Professor Russell Rickford addressed a crowd at the Ithaca Commons saying he was “exhilarated” by Hamas’s initial attack. His comments drew condemnation in national media, and some of his critics called for his dismissal, despite him being a tenured professor.

RELATED: Cornell should not throw Rickford to the mob

The Faculty Senate scheduled a talk by President Martha Pollack followed by questions and answers with faculty members. At the outset, Pollack announced that the new Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures will launch on January 1. Jamila Michener will be the founding Director of the center.

Although Pollack issued statements about the Hamas-Israel dispute, including a joint statement with Kraig Kayser MBA ‘84, Chairman of the Cornell Board of Trustees, critics have questioned whether those statements struck the correct tone. Some wanted to see Cornell pick a side – advocating for either Israel or Hamas – while others advocated for institutional neutrality, where Cornell simply refrains from taking sides on the political or social issues of the day. In the words of the Kalven Report, a university “is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”

Accordingly, Pollack refrains from issuing statements and in particular avoids naming individual faculty in her statements.“In my time as an administrator, only twice have I provided a counter statement to something that a faculty member had said. My response to Professor Rickford is the second such time,” Pollack said. “In my judgment, his comment was egregious. And it demanded a counter statement, given its inconsistency with our core values.”

The other case where Pollack denounced a professor by name was Chemistry Professor David Collum ‘77 who had tweeted on the subject of a protestor in Buffalo who defied the police at a demonstration.

RELATED: John Tomasi visits Cornell to praise institutional neutrality

Faculty speech is protected except in cases of true threats of violence or genuine harassment. In cases where a faculty member has violated those policies, the targeted individual could make a complaint under Policy 6.4, and the case would be handled by an established procedure, rather than by the University President.

Pollack emphasized that the University was not involved in Rickford’s decision to issue an apology for his comments. Based on all the facts, Rickford decided to take a leave of absence, which was approved by the University.

On Nov. 2, the Cornell Board of Trustees held a rare, emergency meeting, and Pollack read to the faculty the comments she made to the Board. She rejected calls for banning hate speech because there is no “hate speech” exception to freedom of expression.

However, Pollack reserved the right to act against a person in very rare cases in which speech is so offensive and hateful that the speaker can no longer fulfill their role at the University, but the bar for that is “appropriately very high.”

In the question and answer segment, Prof. Yuval Grossman, physics, who is Israeli, noted that a large portion of the faculty showed anti-Israeli hate. President Pollack acknowledged the problem, but said it is an issue that the community must take on. Provost Michael Kotlikoff, responded to Grossman’s question by acknowledging Cornell’s need for greater political diversity in the faculty.

Government Professor Richard Bensel, who was Chair of the University Assembly Campus Codes Committee covering free expression and academic freedom issues, then asked:

Some of us, perhaps many of us, deplore the remarks that Russell Rickford made on the Ithaca Commons on October 15. However, he made them off campus in the capacity of a private citizen. On October 17, you, as President of Cornell University in a formal capacity, along with “the senior leadership of the Board of Trustees,” condemned Professor Rickford’s remarks”, adding that: “The University is taking this incident seriously and is currently reviewing it consistent with our procedures.” No one who read that statement could not fail to see that the central administration was warning Professor Rickford that he might be formally punished for his remarks.There are two aspects to this incident that are deeply troubling. One is that the central administration’s intervention was a flagrant violation of academic freedom.The second is that formal condemnation by the central administration figuratively (and perhaps unintentionally) put a target on Professor Rickford’s back, turning him into a potential object of verbal and social abuse. Given that the central administration’s statement might have been motivated, in part, by an emotional reaction to events in Israel and Palestine, would the central administration now consider revoking the October 17 statement and, in that way, renewing its commitment to free speech and academic freedom?

Pollack responded, “I think you and I just disagree on this.” She also added, “I’m not convinced at all that it was my response that, as you say, put a target on his back so much as the comment itself.”

Left unaddressed was which “procedures” were referenced in the October 17 statement as governing Cornell’s reaction to Professor Rickford’s remarks.

Pollack was also asked about graduate student unionization, but because the election was still pending, no comment would be appropriate.

ILR Professor Risa Lieberwitz agreed with Professor Bensel. She also read the sentence about “our procedures” as something more sinister. Further, the October 17 statement did not address academic freedom. Lieberwitz wants Pollack to make a strong statement to the campus about academic freedom, similar to the one she read to the Board of Trustees.

Given that this is the free expression theme year, much more follow-up discussion on these issues is expected. The audio of the meeting has been posted.