Cornell’s free expression revival is far from complete, and not all of the recent developments are good.
President Pollack’s announcement of a 2023-2024 Year Theme of Free Expression was an encouraging, if nominal, victory. It represented both a confirmation of the administration’s rebuke of trigger warnings and a diagnosis of the deeper problem. However, the University Assembly’s (UA) debate at their Tuesday April 25 meeting indicates that a free speech renaissance is far from assured.
The UA stands poised to approve Resolution 7, “Protecting the Freedom of Expression,” which both fails to adequately address encroachments on the freedom of speech and fails to prohibit the heckler’s veto. Worse still, UA representatives criticized “free speech absolutist language,” casually discarded a proposal to adopt the Kalven Report (which advocates official political neutrality by universities), and refused to amend language that implies Cornell will punish speech that conflicts with its values.
The “heckler’s veto” is when protestors shout down, block, or otherwise silence speech they do not agree with. Cornell students used the tactic to silence conservative pundit Ann Coulter ‘84 at an event last November. UA representatives declined to include language expressly prohibiting the heckler’s veto, expressing distaste at responding to a specific incident in a resolution.
Never mind that the Coulter incident and the question of legitimate protest has defined much of the free speech debate at Cornell this semester. One would hope our representatives might feel a responsibility to clarify what types of protest are and are not acceptable in a resolution that was originally titled “Protecting the Right to Protest.” Instead, the resolution is ambiguous, with language that might even be contrived as an endorsement of the heckler’s veto:
Be It Therefore Resolved, the University Assembly wholeheartedly supports efforts to ensure accountability across the Cornell community for speech that violates our values and our Code of Conduct.
Does this mean that the UA is asking Cornell to change the current policy that says such protestors should be punished, to instead support protestors who disrupt speakers with views that are misaligned with the University’s?
If anything, this language reinforces the argument for Cornell to adopt the Kalven Report, a document authored by a commission at the University of Chicago encouraging universities to remain politically neutral on current events. If Cornell truly intends to “support efforts to ensure accountability… for speech that violates Cornell’s values,” it stands to reason that Cornellians who voice opinions that conflict with Cornell’s perceived values may face University-sanctioned retribution. If Cornell fails to adopt a principle of political neutrality and supports those who hold dissenters accountable, Cornell’s political proclamations will come to define “acceptable speech” at Cornell.
However, the UA rejected an effort to remove the accountability clause from the resolution and dismissed the suggestion that they include an adoption of the Kalven Report (or equivalent language promoting political neutrality by the University Administration). The representatives disliked referencing an “external document,” despite it being widely lauded by free speech advocates, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).
Later discussion focused on whether or not the Student Code does in fact punish certain kinds of speech. Several representatives, including Michelle Heeney, Graduate and Professional Student Representative, contended that hate speech is prohibited by the code.
However, the Student Code is fairly clear that the content of the speech is irrelevant when considering punishment. Speech can only be punished when conducted in a way that targets an individual or individuals in such a way that it is considered harassment.
Because of protections afforded by principles of free speech and academic freedom, expression will not be considered harassment unless the expression also meets one or both of the following criteria:
1. It is meant to be either abusive or humiliating toward a specific person or persons; or
2. It persists despite the reasonable objection of the person or person targeted by the speech.
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.”
The Review reached out to Professor Richard Bensel, UA Chair of the newly renamed Campus Codes Committee for his interpretation of the Student Code’s stance on offensive speech. Bensel responded:
I think the difference of opinion turns, for one thing, on the word “meant” under (1). For many people at Cornell, “meant” is interpreted as the judgment of the recipient or target of speech and, as a corollary, so are the judgments associated with “humiliating” and the intended target.
Such interpretations imply that speech can be controlled by the listener without any effective appeal by the speaker. That is a serious problem in a community in which minority views are often rejected out of hand as “humiliating” or “abusive.” One of the interesting things about this line of discussion is that [it] is not the majority in any community whose speech needs protecting, but the minority.
Professor Bensel said he didn’t bring up this point during the debate because he “did not think there would be time to discuss it.” However, he does believe this issue should be explored.
He’s right; if any issue merits a deep discussion, it is the issue of free expression–and that’s what this “Free Expression” theme year is supposed to be about. As President Pollack wrote in her email announcing the theme: “Today, as we witness assaults on free expression and academic freedom from both ends of the political spectrum, it is vitally important that we, as a community of scholars, engage deeply with these values and the issues that can emerge in upholding them.”
And yet, the UA adopted none of the recommendations made in the comments for Resolution 7. In fact, the UA only seriously discussed the content of one of the comments, largely because the commenter was present at the meeting. One has to wonder, why even ask for comments? The UA is wasting a valuable opportunity to provide mature and informed leadership on this issue. Free expression is finally getting the attention it deserves, but that doesn’t mean all is good and well at Cornell.
