In a Tuesday meeting, the University Assembly discussed Resolution 7, “Protecting the Right to Protest,” rejecting several amendments proposed by commenters, and deciding not to include a clause prohibiting the “heckler’s veto.” They again tabled a final vote on the resolution which has been retitled “Protecting the Right to Free Expression.”
Resolution 7, which was introduced nearly identical to SA Resolution 28, would profess the University Assembly’s support of free expression and free protest. Further, the resolution would indicate the UA’s intention to participate in the ongoing free expression conversation at Cornell while holding individuals “accountable” for their speech. It had been pending while the assembly was accepting comments.
After passing some bylaw and charter revisions, the UA turned to Resolution 7. UA Chair Duncan Cady began by briefly discussing the comments submitted to the Assembly, expressing surprise that many were anonymous. “In aggregate it seems that most of the comments are in support [of the resolution],” said Cady, “some longer comments [got] into specifics of certain parts that [they] don’t support or certain stances as a whole.” Cady did not go into further detail about the comments.
In total, there were eleven comments, eight in favor and three opposed to the resolution. Seven of the supporting comments were anonymous, with the eighth submitted by Pedro Henrique Lopes Da Silveira, a Student Assembly Representative. All the supporting comments were fairly short and specifically praised the defense of the right to protest, with many calling it an “essential right.”
The opposing comments were all publicly authored and longer, bringing up issues with the resolution’s clarity and wording. Alumni Robert C. Platt Esq. ’73, JD ’76 and Eli Lehrer, ’98 criticized Resolution 7 for assuming “that there are [sic] a clear set of undebatable ‘values’ which can never be challenged.” Arthur Spitzer, who served as the first Speaker of the University Senate (a predecessor of the UA), feared the resolution would “send a message of support for those who would prevent or disrupt speech they find intolerable.” Similarly, the Cornell Review commented that the resolution was overly vague, and should mention a “right to be heard.”
The Heckler’s Veto and the Kalven Report
Cady then introduced Mr. Platt, who had requested to speak to the assembly in addition to his comments. Platt stressed that the specifics of the rules regulating protest are less important than whether they are consistently applied. Nobody’s speech should be treated any differently than anyone else’s regardless of its content, argued Platt, warning that the UA will “inadvertently harm the right of free expression if [they] get this resolution wrong.”
Additionally, Platt suggested adding a clause that prohibits the “heckler’s veto,” and advocated adopting the Kalven Report, a document that advocates that universities practice official neutrality on political topics in order to avoid chilling speech. The report is widely lauded by free speech organizations as the proper way for a university to handle its relationship with political topics.
The sponsor of the resolution, Representative Issac Chasen, immediately expressed opposition to adding a clause prohibiting the “heckler’s veto.” The “heckler’s veto” was used by protestors to silence Ann Coulter at a Cornell event in November. Chasen clarified that he was against “adding clauses to a resolution based on one specific event, you know, based on effectively what happened at the Coulter Event.” Such a clause, he felt, would lead to a “laundry-list” of grievances.
Chasen and several UA members also specifically rejected the idea of adopting the Kalven Report, expressing concern at referencing an “external” document. Representative Andrew Juan opined that the University, as a “social institution, has no ability to be completely neutral in anything.” Professor Bensel, Faculty Representative, wondered about the question of true neutrality, though he thought the administration specifically should strive for neutrality.
Then Jararmy Kruser, Employee Assembly Representative to the UA, proposed changing the resolution title to “Protecting the Right to Free Expression” and adopting a purpose statement. The proposed statement said, “[the resolution] urges the administration to work with students, employees, and faculty to discuss and communicate enforcement of issues of free expression.” Both motions were accepted by the body.
Speech as an Action?
Platt then interjected again, recommending that the assembly delete a resolved clause, which 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.” This clause, argued Platt, implied that the resolution endorsed regulating speech that is inconsistent with Cornell’s values. Nothing in Cornell’s Student Code of Conduct is a prohibition against speech, rather the Code prohibits actions like harassment, contended Platt.
Graduate and Professional Student Representative Michelle Heeney did not agree. Speech can be considered an action, she argued.
Mr. Kruser expanded on Representative Heeney’s comment, expressing concern about “free speech absolutist language” used in the resolution.
I don’t agree that we completely and unequivocally support free speech, free expression…It’s not about the content, but the impact on our community. And there, as was being said, there’s some real impact that words can cause, there’s a real effect upon our community that words can cause and I think it’s important that we don’t abdicate our responsibility to deal with the complexity of free speech, hate speech.
Cady clarified that the resolution was drafted with an understanding that “hate speech is not free speech.”
According to the Student Code, speech on its own cannot constitute harassment, and Cornell makes no distinction between speech and hate speech. It stresses that “offensive” speech– or any speech–is not prohibited unless it targets an individual or individuals specifically:
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.
Cornell does not recognize a general prohibition against “hate speech” anywhere in its student code.
In the interest of time, the assembly then voted to table the resolution until the next meeting, which will be this assembly’s final meeting. Before putting the issue to rest, Cady asked for a “straw poll” to gauge support for the resolution. Several members indicated approval of the resolution, and none indicated displeasure, making it likely that Resolution 7 will pass in its current form at the meeting on May 9. None of the commenters’ suggestions were incorporated into the resolution.
An earlier version of this article stated that UA Resolution 7 is nearly identical to SA Resolution 28. That has now been changed, because there was a round of changes before the last SA meeting and more changes for this UA meeting. Also, an earlier version stated that the UA was considering byline resolutions. The resolutions considered were bylaw and charter revisions.
