McGraw Hall, home of Cornell's history department
On Sunday, October 15, Cornell History Professor Russell Rickford gave a speech on the Ithaca Commons calling the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel “exhilarating” and “energizing.” The statement drew national attention and complaints from pro-Israel Cornellians. On October 17, Martha Pollack and Board of Trustees Chair Kraig Kayser issued a joint statement which said,
This is a reprehensible comment that demonstrates no regard whatsoever for humanity. As we said in yesterday’s statement, endorsed by senior leadership of the Board of Trustees, any members of our community who have made such statements do not speak for Cornell; in fact, they speak in direct opposition to all we stand for at Cornell. The university is taking this incident seriously and is currently reviewing it consistent with our procedures.
In response, on October 18, Rickford issued the following statement:
I apologize for the horrible choice of words that I used in a portion of a speech that was intended to stress grassroots African American, Jewish and Palestinian traditions of resistance to oppression. I recognize that some of the language I used was reprehensible and did not reflect my values. As I said in the speech, I abhor violence and the violent targeting of civilians. I am sorry for the pain that my reckless remarks have caused my family, my students, my colleagues and many others in this time of suffering. As a scholar, a teacher, an activist and a father, I strive to uphold the values of human dignity, peace and justice. I want to make it clear that I unequivocally oppose and denounce racism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, militarism, fundamentalism and all systems that dehumanize, divide and oppress people.
All of the above has been knee deep in hypocrisy. President Pollack has issued three statements on the Hamas attacks, with the second statement prompted by public criticism of a failure to use the word “terrorism” in her first,and the third statement prompted by criticism that she failed to expressly “name and shame” Professor Rickford.
The fact is that none of this debate has an impact on national policy, since the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense all made public statements supporting Israel before Rickford ever spoke. A decade of Rickford’s pro-Palestinian statements have fallen on deaf ears and resulted in zero impact on public policy. Rickford does not pose a threat of “imminent lawless action” against Israel or against the United States.
Under the First Amendment, restrictions upon speech must be made in a content neutral manner. Cornell should be equally welcoming of extramural comments from the left, right or center; from pro-Hamas or pro-Israel viewpoints.
Other Battlegrounds
On Oct.12, the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) drafted a proposed resolution for the Student Assembly (SA), but the SA resisted pressure to adopt their resolution. This follows years of SJP trying unsuccessfully to get Cornell to join the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement against Israel.
There is an active national debate over Gaza discussions on college campuses. Harvard student groups issued a pro-Hamas statement that prompted threats from donors and one group renting a portable billboard truck denouncing signatories as anti-semetic. Major donors at the University of Pennsylvania have also removed support.
Meanwhile, the Starbucks Workers United union (which Cornell recently agreed to support with a boycott) has caused controversy with a pro-Hamas series of statements.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has issued a public statement on the controversy reaffirming the rights of students and faculty on both sides of the issue to speak out.
There have been no public threats from large Cornell donors, but with the annual Trustee-Council Weekend scheduled to begin, apparently the Rickford controversy was too great for Day Hall to leave the issue unaddressed prior to these critical meetings.
Lessons Learned
According to the case law and applicable University policies, all Cornell faculty and students have the right to make statements, even reprehensible statements, off-campus without fear of retaliation from Cornell. This is because the search for truth requires all viewpoints to be allowed into the marketplace of ideas. It is not Cornell’s role to label ideas as “good” or “bad.”
Perhaps some advocating for Hamas have been caught by surprise this time by the strong backlash that their remarks have drawn. Certainly, speakers should expect that the ideas expressed (although protected free speech) to be viewed negatively, to draw criticism, and to have consequences.
A good example was the Supreme Court case of Snyder v. Phelps, which upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket soldiers’ funerals with signs bearing offensive messages like “Fags Doom Nations” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” But as the Court said in an 8-1 decision uniting Supreme Court Justices across the ideological spectrum:
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
Regarding the calls to fire Rickford, the American Association of College and University Professors issued a 1940 statement which notes,
a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for continuing service. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar.
Similarly, Cornell’s core value of free expression and its policy statement on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression would seem to protect Rickford from any Cornell-imposed sanction for his October 15 talk.
However, there are serious loopholes in these policies. The academic freedom policy ends with a clause that pulls back much of the protections that it so powerfully advances:
Based on the protections afforded by academic freedom, speech and other expression in the context of instruction or research will not be considered prohibited conduct unless this speech or expression meets the definition of discrimination or protected-status harassment under Cornell policies and procedures, and also meets one or both of the following criteria: a reasonable person in the setting would find it to be abusive or humiliating toward a specific individual or specific individuals, or it persists despite the reasonable objection of the specific individual or individuals targeted by the speech.
The Pollack-Kayser statement promises a review of Rickford’s statement “consistent with our procedures.” But the fact is that Cornell has no procedures to enforce its Academic Freedom Policy, and this exception only applies if the statement targeted “specific individuals or individuals.”
The promised protection is limited to “the context of instruction or research.” If Pollack and Kayser were to honor the letter of Cornell’s free expression policies, they would not have denounced Rickford.
The problem is not that Cornell will handle an errant faculty member in a formal and fair process. Rather, the danger is that a targeted faculty member will be subject to a hidden informal sanction by a department chair or by colleagues that could be far more painful than an open dismissal.
Cornell should not cancel anybody or try to throw any faculty to the mob, regardless of the amount of pressure applied. Instead, Cornell should adopt the Kalven Report and refrain from taking a position on all political issues. Cornell should be a neutral host allowing for all views, no matter how mistaken, to be expressed, subject to a very narrow exception for real threats or genuine harassment.
This op-ed was written by a member of the Cornell community who wishes to remain anonymous.
