Pollack promises consequences for Coulter hecklers

In a meeting of the University Assembly on Tuesday, President Martha Pollack promised that there would be consequences for the students who disrupted the Ann Coulter event last Wednesday. This latest comment is another in a series of official statements from university officials on the topic.

Last Wednesday, the Cornell chapter of the Network of enlightened Women welcomed Coulter ‘84 to campus. She was unable to speak uninterrupted, with a chain of protestors employing numerous tactics to prevent her from speaking. After 20 minutes, Coulter left the auditorium. The cancellation was met with demands for punishment from numerous sections of the campus community. However, the University has not specified what will become of the agitators.

The morning after the event, Cornell’s Vice President for University Relations, Joel M. Malina, released a statement apologizing to Coulter and excoriating the hecklers for disrespecting “the university’s values.” He further stated that the Cornell students involved would be “referred for conduct violations.” In total, eight college-aged individuals were removed, though the administration did not specify how many were Cornell students.

Now, President Pollack has also weighed in. About eighteen minutes into the University Assembly’s Tuesday night meeting, Pollack unleashed a verbal tirade against the hecklers. Prompted by a question from Professor Richard Bensel—the body’s faculty representative and Chair of the Codes and Judicial Committee—President Pollack had much to say on the matter.

Specifically, Bensel asked: “What kinds of punishment do you believe will discourage this kind of behavior in the future?” Pollack responded that she was “disgusted by the behavior of these students” and called the disruption a “really stupid move” on account of Coulter’s waning relevance. Bensel and Pollack posited that the event erupting into chaos was “exactly what [Coulter] wanted” because, according to Bensel, it “burnishes her reputation.”

Pollack, despite reaffirming her personal distaste for Coulter, promised that the students involved were identified by CUPD and “will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct,” who will determine an appropriate punishment. Pollack, multiple times, repeated “the students were warned” that disrupting the event would result in consequences. Nevertheless, they persisted.

However, Pollack’s remarks have much broader implications than simply punishing the Coulter protestors. In direct response to Bensel’s question of what would deter future mobs from wielding the heckler’s veto, Pollack did not have “a good answer.” Rather, she called for campus discourse on the importance of free speech.

While both Bensel and Pollack made clear their personal opinions about Ann Coulter, both articulated the importance of—and clear threat to—free speech at Cornell. Pollack concluded her answer by saying that free speech is “something we need to continue to discuss as a community. I think it’s going to take community pressure, I think it’s going to take a real lot of talking about why we have to have free speech.”

TRANSCRIPTION – Disclaimer: Due to audio quality, there may be errors in transcription

R. Bensel: On November 9th, there was a presentation, a talk by Ann Coulter, and it was disrupted and she was not allowed to continue to speak. On the internet, you’ll find that there are about 300,000 hits for “November Ninth, Ann Coulter, Cornell,” so it’s a big thing. It was—I have no grief for Ann Coulter, I don’t like her—but she has a right to speak. And this, unfortunately, was exactly what she wanted, because it burnishes her reputation as an outlier and so forth. It was an organized demonstration. It was not passionate, spur of the moment. It was organized. It was tag-teamed. You gave a very good statement, a public statement, condemning it. One of the lines, and this is the question, one of the lines was, “All Cornell students among the disruptors will be referred for conduct violations.”

The question is: They weren’t discouraged to do this. What kinds of action do you believe will discourage this kind of … protests are great, we should have them outside of the venue. Inside the venue, they should be suppressed themselves. What kinds of punishment do you believe will discourage this kind of behavior in the future?

M. Pollack: Let me take this, Richard. First of all, I completely agree with you. I am disgusted by the behavior of these students. I have no grief for Ann Coulter either, and frankly I think this was a really stupid move because Ann Coulter is basically irrelevant at this point, and you’re right, this is exactly what she wanted. When she decided to walk out—we didn’t stop her, she walked out, though I don’t blame her with everything that was happening—this is what she wanted. The students were warned. I wanted to give credit to our police force who I think handled this extremely well. You can’t manhandle students. The students were warned; they escorted the students out. They collected IDs when they could. The students will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. They will decide what the punishments are. I don’t have a good answer to the question of what will deter this in the future. But I will tell you quite honestly, it’s something we discussed in my cabinet yesterday. It’s something I think we need to continue to discuss as a community. I think it’s going to take community pressure. I think it’s going to take a real lot of talking about why we have to have free speech.

R. Bensel: Thank you.

Correction: An earlier version misquoted Professor Bensel as saying “furnishes” instead of “burnishes” in the article, though the transcription is correct