The UA meets several times per month on the fourth floor of the Physical Sciences Building.
On March 28, the University Assembly (UA) met in the Physical Sciences Building to discuss free speech issues and approve a resolution on designating Cornell as a “Purple Heart University.”
The UA is a group of 20 elected representatives of students, faculty, and non-academic staff that coordinates the work of the assemblies representing each separate constituent group.
Purple Heart Designation
Resolution #6 would designate Cornell a “Purple Heart University” and call for the annual honoring of all Purple Heart veterans.
Generally, the military awards a Purple Heart to veterans who are injured in foreign combat. This was a non-controversial resolution that was co-sponsored by, among others, Jenny Loeffelman, Assistant Vice President for Student and Campus Life; Teresa Duncan, Director, Military Programs, eCornell; Sonia Rucker, Associate Vice President Inclusion and Belonging; and Christine Lovely, Vice President and Chief Human Resources Office.
Narcan Availability
The UA discussed Resolution #8 which would make Narcan more readily available to address possible opioid overdoses. Although the resolution’s sponsors did not have any Cornell-specific data, the concern is that opioid overdoses may be on the rise.
If adopted, the resolution would require any sponsor of gatherings, concerts, or parties having more than 100 attendees to have a trained Narcan administrator, along with a supply of the drug, on site. The Skorton Center for Health Initiatives within Cornell Health would make Narcan training available to volunteers who would serve in that role.
Free Speech and the Right to Protest
In the aftermath of Ann Coulter ‘84’s visit, there has been a debate over the appropriate way to punish people who interfere with speakers that are invited to campus.
Those who want to disrupt lectures claim that they have a “free speech right” to shut down speakers with whom they disagree. In response, the Student Assembly (SA) adopted Resolution 28 sponsored by the Cornell student chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The ACLU national organization has for decades taken the view that members of an audience do not have the right to prevent a speaker from giving a talk. Instead, silent forms of protest (such as holding up signs) or protests in a separate room are appropriate. Ben Wizner, head of the ACLU’s free speech project said:
“[T]he right response, in our view, is counter speech to protest that speech in a way that does not prevent others from being able to hear the speech. And so this is really important. We’ve seen a lot of incidents on college campuses recently where students who go to protest a speaker actually make it impossible not just for that speaker to speak, but for any other students to hear that speaker’s words. And that in our view, and in the law’s view is not an appropriate way to express disagreement with that speaker.”
Isaac Chasen ’23, co-president of Cornell ACLU and Sun columnist, is the primary author of the resolution, which the SA adopted as Resolution 28. He stated that this resolution aims to reaffirm the SA’s supportive attitude towards free speech.
When Chasen presented the same resolution at the UA’s March 21 meeting, critics such as Jeramy Kruser claimed that it was unclear and did not do anything specifically. Both the SA’s resolution and the updated draft UA resolution obtained by the Review called for “space and protection for the peaceful expression of all views and opinions” without saying whether shouting down speakers was protected or prohibited.
Chasen hoped that his resolution could form the basis of renewed dialogue on the protection and limits of free speech.
The UA has decades of experience on this issue. Until August 2021, the UA had full responsibility for the Campus Code of Conduct and the judicial system. However, effective August 2021, the Trustees removed this delegation of this power to the UA and made Student and Campus Life VP Ryan Lombardi responsible instead. Title I Article III(A) and (B) of the Campus Code had detailed rules defining free speech rights.
The old Code said, “Those who oppose a speaker may thus make their views known, so long as they do not thereby interfere with the speaker’s ability to be heard or the right of others to listen.” In 2020, a group of minority students claimed that the Campus Code was “too legalistic” and argued that it should be repealed.
So, the new Student Code prohibits, in Section F(1), “Substantially obstructing or interfering with the lawful exercise of freedom of speech or freedom of peaceable assembly of any person or persons;”
In the course of the meeting, the UA discussed the status of the students identified as disrupting Ann Coulter.
Robert Platt ‘73 proposed an amendment calling for annual training of the members of the University Hearing Board, the University Review Board, and the staff of the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Platt argued that once the policy is set, it is important for the people who must apply the rules to the facts of each case be properly trained. Chasen and some others objected because the amendment was too specific. After lengthy discussion, the UA voted to put the proposed resolution out for public comment.
Update – The University Assembly is now accepting comments on Resolution 7. Comments can be added here: https://assembly.cornell.edu/resolutions/ua-r7-right-protest
