On Thursday, the Student Assembly narrowly voted down a proposal to consider Resolution XX.
The motion was brought forward in response to President Pollack’s recent messages regarding the violence and terrorist attacks in Israel.
Background
On October 7th, 2023, Israel was attacked by the terrorist organization Hamas. The attack resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 Israeli civilians, including the violent murder of women, children, babies and the elderly.
Additionally, at least 27 American citizens were killed in the terrorist attack, with several Americans still missing, and approximately 150 Israeli citizens taken hostage by Hamas. In response, Israel declared war on the terrorist organization, and began a large-scale rocket barrage into Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinians.
On Tuesday, Cornell’s President Pollack sent out a message to express her “horror, sadness and concern.” She called the loss of human life tragic, equating the terrorist attack to that of “earthquakes, fires or floods.” Pollack also stated that there is no way to “acknowledge the pain that different members of our community feel when such events occur”.
Notably, Pollack omitted any mention that these actions from Hamas were acts of terrorism, prompting outrage from across campus. The president followed up her original message by acknowledging that she, “failed to say that the atrocities committed by Hamas this past weekend were acts of terrorism.”
In response to the President’s message, SA’s LGBTQIA + Liaison at Large, Karys Everett, and president of Students for Justice for Palestine (SJP), Malak Abuhashim, respectfully, co-sponsored a resolution urging Pollack to send out a new message to provide “additional context” to what is happening in the Middle East.
The resolution, titled Resolution XX, was not actually published on the Cornell SA website per standard protocol, however the Cornell Review was able to obtain a copy. The resolution, titled “Acknowledging Palestinian Suffering under Israeli Apartheid,” demanded Cornell “reevaluate its response to the Palestinian resistance efforts and provide more historically accurate and balanced perspectives.”
The resolution, which began by calling Hamas an “armed resistance front,” blamed Israel for creating the conditions for these attacks to occur. It also condemned Israel’s “75 years of illegal occupation” and stated that Hamas’s armed operations were a “direct response” to Israel’s “settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid governance.”
The resolution also accuses Cornell of being “complacent in the systematic dehumanization of Palestinian people that sustains the status-quo.” Finally, it calls for Cornell to “denounce Zionism as an ideology and acknowledge Palestinians’ right to existence in their homeland.”
Upon introduction, there was backlash amongst Cornell students, particularly the Jewish community. A petition was sent out urging the Student Assembly to reject the resolution. At the time of the Student Assembly meeting, the petition had approximately 1,600 signatures. Within 24 hours of publication, it had almost 3,200 signatures.
(A copy of Resolution XX)
The Meeting
Before the meeting began, a number of students had gathered to watch the Student Assembly as far as 30 minutes in advance. By then, the room had around 200 students in attendance. By the time the meeting began at 4:45, the room was completely full, with students standing in all the free spaces of Willard Straight Hall’s Memorial Room.
The crowd was very tense. Before the Assembly convened, a small argument broke out between the two groups who supported and opposed the resolution. Several students were not comfortable with others taking photos and videos, and several audience members asked the Cornell Review’s staff to stop taking photos.
President of Student Assembly Patrick Kuehl began the meeting by asking the audience to be mindful of those around them, and to speak with decency and respect. Vice President Claire Ting asked the audience members to look across the other side of the room, look someone in the eye and say, “I respect you”. This was met with a very muted response from the audience.
Ting continued by saying that this issue deeply affects the Cornell community, and urged audience members to “speak your truth, but speak with empathy.” She also said that these truths can be uncomfortable, but can exist at the same time, and that “what we have heard from the media may not be the entire story […] have some tolerance.”
The president then explained the procedure: Resolution XX was introduced in the DEI committee. The Assembly only considers items on the agenda, and the committee did not vote to refer it to the assembly (it was rejected in the DEI committee by a vote of 6-4).
Resolutions can be added to the agenda without committee referral, however it requires a ⅔ vote of approval by the Assembly to add a resolution to the agenda. Debate would be confined to reasons why or why not it should be added to the Assembly’s agenda. A motion to include the resolution could be proposed after an open mic period, where speakers are permitted to speak up to 3 minutes for why they should or should not approve the resolution.
Immediately after Kuehl’s remarks, the co-sponsor of the resolution, Karys Everett, defended the resolution, saying that it is important as a university to express support for everyone that has been impacted by the events that have transpired.
Further, she explained that the school should not use exclusive language, and that the administration’s message has a significant impact here at Cornell. Everett argued the University should express sympathy for all lives lost, and Pollack’s message was not sufficient in expressing said sympathy.
(Co-Sponser Karys Everett speaking on why the SA should pass resolution XX)
The Open Microphone Speakers
Several speakers spoke to the SA with their thoughts on the Resolution, and the situation as a whole. The first speaker, Maya Learner, expressed that Israel is not an apartheid state, saying that Israel has given aid to Palestine. A significant portion of the audience giggled upon hearing this. In response, Learned passionately implored the SA to reject the measure, saying that it is this type of behavior and intolerance that leads to anti-semitic acts.
Another speaker, Malak Abashev, asked the SA to acknowledge the lives lost in Palestine as is being acknowledged for the Israelis. He implored the SA to use “fair treatment” and that it is “your duty to stand for what is right.” The next speaker brought up the atrocities committed against Israel, and compared them to the Holocaust. He further stated that the resolution itself was extremely wrong, in particular the statement that, “we Cornellians hold the Israeli state accountable for these atrocities.” He critiqued the resolution by pointing out that it called Hamas an “armed resistance movement.” He argued that this was a “misrepresentation of the facts dangerous to the [Jewish] people.” Other speakers contended that the University should not make statements on any political affairs, saying that no entity affiliated with the university should make a political resolution. Addressing Resolution XX, he stated that the resolution had an “utter lack of empathy” to understand those who disagree.
Another speaker, who identified himself as Hashan, praised the upholding of equity and inclusion, and criticized Cornell for failing to recognize the Palestinian cause. He told the SA to “grow a spine” and that silence speaks volumes. The next speaker, identified as Sam, noted that the resolution states that Israel has illegally occupied for “75 years.” However, he argued that Israel did not occupy Gaza until 1967, meaning that the SJP who sponsored the resolution, believes that all of Israel is occupied territory, and that SJP wants to see all Israel “written off the map.” He argued that it would be wholly inappropriate and dangerous to pass this resolution at this time. He also argued that the Resolution would make the Jewish community feel unwelcomed. Other speakers implored the SA to simply acknowledge the Palestinian cause. Further, one speaker identified as Bahar, stated that “no one is defending Hamas.” He also made several incendiary comments, stating that the University did not condemn the IDF for its “war crimes”, and that “Israel is an apartheid state. Period.” He also said it would be a “cowardly move” to ignore the resolution. The audience further giggled at remarks made by the speaker sarcastically stating that Israel gave aid to Palestine.
Other speakers argued that the original announcement was about the loss of life in Israel, and that it failed to meet neutrality. They asked for equal treatment in the University’s response. Finally, the last speakers asserted that by voting for this resolution, the SA would be endorsing violence against Jews at Cornell. The speaker implored the SA to vote against the resolution, saying that Jewish students were afraid to go to class or wear a star of David in public. The last speaker identified himself as a bisexual man, and told Everett the LGBTQIA + Liaison at Large that he was deeply offended by the Resolution and felt unrepresented. He stated that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has tolerance to the LGBTQ community.
(Student Assembly members listening to a speaker)
The Vote
After the open microphone portion was completed, the original co-sponsor (Everett) said that she wanted to propose several amendments to the original Resolution. She stated that she feels everyone’s pain and would like to reintroduce with at least 14 amendments to the original resolution. She argued that the SA should vote to bring the resolution to the table in order to amend it.
After this, there was a debate about next steps. Some members argued to vote for the Resolution in order to revise it. Vice President Ting argued that a substantial number of representatives had not read the resolution in full (Ting asked members to raise their hands if they had read the resolution in full; the large majority did raise their hands). She argued that the resolution needed revisions.
Others argued against voting for the resolution for amendment. Clyde Lederman, the SA’s Vice President of Internal Operations, stated that the resolution falls far outside the boundary of the SA charter, and that this was not the business of the assembly. He also stated that the resolution was rejected in committee 6-4 by an email vote.
He further argued that for a topic this serious there needed to be more meetings, and that this is not the time to be voting on this resolution. College of Engineering representative Andrew Richmond also argued against voting for the resolution, saying that everyone needed time to think and “cool off.”
After this, the SA considered a motion on whether to bring forward the resolution for amendments. The vote was 7 for and 5 against. Since the motion needed ⅔ approval, the motion did not pass, and the resolution was finished.
Ting voted in favor, while Lederman and Richmond voted against. Several SA representatives abstained from the motion.
(Members voting yes to bring the resolution to the table)
