Interim Policy Changes January 2024
- Interim Expressive Activity Policy
- Interim Expressive Activity Policy Comparison Chart
- Interim Anti-Doxxing Policy
- Video of Faculty Town Hall Regarding Interim Policies
- Video of Employee and Staff Town Hall, 2/22/2024
Comments
** Commenting is closed.No staff protections
Submitted by Anonymous Committee Member on Thu, 2024-02-22 16:33 (user name hidden)Staff are extremely concerned about how this policy affects us, and this morning's town hall only exacerbated those concerns. Be your authentic self, but Cornell won't protect you. If you get DOXXED, you're on your own, but here's a website? If you state your opinions away from Cornell and don't identify yourself as having a role with Cornell, and someone reports your actions back to Cornell, an unnamed entity with no policy in place will determine if your actions prevent you from performing your job and may grounds for dismissal? Staff doesn't have the protections of tenure, and this policy effectively removes our constitutional right to free speech - even away from campus.
Let's face it
Submitted by Anonymous authenticated user on Thu, 2024-02-22 14:01 (user name hidden)Let's face it, there are no campus political protests that are as much of a risk to "health and safety" of students as Fraternity Rush, and as "disruptive" to the university's "everyday operations" as Slope Day. At least I cannot recall students tragically passing away, or having to be airlifted to a hospital, due to a political protest on campus during my time at Cornell.
Putting aside, for a moment,
Submitted by Anonymous authenticated user on Thu, 2024-02-22 13:19 (user name hidden)Putting aside, for a moment, the significant restrictions of political speech that this policy will implement, one of the core issues that the university administration will find itself very quickly entangled in is the question of its "unbiased" enforcement, because it presents a paradox that is, coincidentally, also reflective of many authoritarian systems.
On the one hand, the university administration assures us (and did so again this morning in the staff town hall) that this policy of expressive activity is "content-free" (a somewhat bizarre choice of words in regard to political protest, but which apparently is meant to signal that the policy will be applied "equally" regardless of the content of speech).
However, when asked about what types of speech will be restricted/policed/curtailed, the administration states that this policy will "only" target content and speech that "some members of the university perceive as offensive, disruptive, or harassment." In other words, there is no objective policy in place to determine what actually counts as harassment or disruption; no, the university treats as "harassment" or "offensive" what "some members of the community" (aka donors, student parents) "perceive" as harassment.
It must be obvious to everyone that this policy thus benefits groups that have enough social or financial capital to feel safe about speaking up, and further discriminates those already at risk.
As we have learned in the past weeks/months, the university considers it a legitimate grievance for pro-Israel members of the community to feel harassed or offended by various protests against Israel's illegal occupation and genocide in Palestine (both are currently subject two 2 different trials in front of the ICJ, one should add, in case the Cornell administration missed the news). Let's put aside the political discourse underlying this conflict, since "right" or "wrong" shouldn't matter for a "content-free" policy. So does it follow, then, that members of the community who sympathize with Putin should be given equal consideration if they voice their concerns about vocal and public expressions of solidarity with Ukraine? Will the university consider it a legitimate grievance if members of evangelical student organizations "feel" "harassed" by the presence of visibly queer students or faculty on campus? Can atheist students, in turn, make a case that they "feel" "harassed" by expressively religious symbols displayed on campus? Will the university tear down the chapel if enough people are offended by its presence?
"Feeling" harassed or offended should not be the guiding principle for restricting speech, since anyone can feel offended by anything, and a policy that is supposedly "content-free" cannot, by definition, treat some "feelings" as more valid than others. Yet this is exactly what the administration has been doing by treating some "feelings of harassment" as legitimate but not others. So clearly its policies and their enforcement are not "content-free" at all. Which begs the question what determines the validity of certain "feelings" over others for the leadership of this university.
Irony of the policies in the year of freedom of expression
Submitted by Anonymous Committee Member on Tue, 2024-02-20 14:29 (user name hidden)As they stand, these policies do not provide a platform for freedom of expression. If anything, this is a form of censoring and silencing of students, faculty and staff. There is no way to uphold a "content-neutral" approach while taking "disciplinary action" against anyone who creates the most minor inconvenience on Cornell's campus. To restrict where one can post, when one can speak, and how loud they may speak, is not freedom of expression.
Policy oversteps
Submitted by Anonymous authenticated user on Tue, 2024-02-20 12:17 (user name hidden)I dissent, I dissent, I dissent. For all the reasons already shared. RBG is surely reeling.
Staff Info is too public to begin with
Submitted by Anonymous authenticated user on Tue, 2024-02-20 12:13 (user name hidden)Cornell makes staff information too public to begin with.
Heck you used to make home addresses standard in the directory by default.
It has put our images right into our emails and calendars.
Direct numbers and emails are available to the public, often bypassing "main office" contact info.
Even non-public facing staff can be subject to having our work space made public.
This create a risk for staff, who can be targeted by anyone or group with a grudge, as we have seen with project veritas, and targeted social media posts.
The push to use ring central and personal phones put us at further risk
An Embarrassment and a Shame
Submitted by Anonymous authenticated user on Mon, 2024-02-19 15:44 (user name hidden)I'll make sure that my expressive activity is unseen and unheard by anyone! I wouldn't want to disturb anyone's "peaceful use and enjoyment of the university"! I'll make sure that my posters and art are so small that no one will notice if they say something at all! And I'll make sure that I speak really quietly so that the future bomb-building engineering students can study! I really wouldn't want anyone at Cornell to have to confront the death and murder that its investments are funding! We're just measly staff and students. We should really keep our voices quiet and respectful, since Cornell is just such a wonderful and beautiful place to study! We really wouldn't want anyone to start questioning that lovely, peaceful campus that allows students to haze their fellow students to death, or loses students to suicide every semester because it fails to offer adequate mental health help! Oh no no, we shouldn't really say anything too loud, Cornell really shouldn't have to bother with our voices at all! We should make our expressive activity really unbothersome so that it's easier to ignore!!
a liberal-standard "law and order" crackdown on free speech
Submitted by Shimon Edelman on Mon, 2024-02-19 15:20
I find it regrettable that Cornell has decided to crack down on all the outlets that its community members have for expressing dissent — in the year of free speech, no less. Unfortunately, I am not surprised by this development: it follows the pattern set by virtually every municipality and police force in this country (regardless of the political affiliation, because of course both parties answer to the same corporate overlords). In this matter, Cornell follows the usual liberal path to fascism: lip service to freedom, accompanied by its consistent erosion as the Overton window shifts to the right in response to right-wing gaslighting, propaganda, and media manipulation. It's one thing to prohibit Nazis from posting to the bulletin boards; it's another thing to use that (entirely marginal) threat as an excuse to limit everyone's freedom of expression. And of course the new policy is handed down by diktat (the "town hall" where only softball questions vetted ahead of time are allowed is a fig leaf).
p.s. I also find this funny (not in a good way):
"Please note: Your name will not be shown with your comment, but it will be stored in the system and viewable by site administrators." lol
Concerns about postering regulations
Submitted by Kathy A. Hovis on Mon, 2024-02-19 14:34I have lots of concerns about the postering regulations, but these are foremost: posters larger than 8.5x11 need to be made of flame-retardant material? And there will be fees charged if posters are left up for more than two weeks after an event? Who will be policing all of these bulletin boards and determining who to fine? Seems pretty heavy-handed.
Change advocates no longer?
Submitted by Anonymous authenticated user on Fri, 2024-02-23 10:04 (user name hidden)This is probably not lost on many of the commenters here, so I probably don't need to say it, but I'm going to anyway because free speech is allowed still. Remember that time in 1969 when "members of the Afro-American Society (AAS) occupied Willard Straight Hall" to protest racism at Cornell? As a refresher, here's your own article about it: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/04/campus-takeover-symbolized-era-change. The use of weapons notwithstanding, this protest was necessary, and the event was a pivotal moment in Cornell's history that propelled it into an "era of change," and it significantly contributed to the overall civil rights movement. That photo in the article won a Pulitzer Prize, for goodness' sake, and Cornell is somewhat respected and known for civil disobedience. Are you telling us now that such change is not necessary or welcome here anymore? Certainly, not. I exaggerate slightly to make a point, but it would seem to observers that the university, with this policy, isn't far from banning such activities in the future, effectively closing the doors to the progress it could make. Caution seems appropriate advice here. You're treading in darker waters now where it would be impossible for students, faculty, and especially staff members to protest, for example, the rise of antisemitism, racism, all forms of bigotry, or authoritarian government (real threats at this time). Are we now expected to be ok with the status quo and keep our mouths shut for the sake of decorum? People in 1960 didn't do that, and this country is on a slippery slope as it is now, so we shouldn't either. It's worth a little discomfort to make positive change, don't you think? With this policy, you are stripping away any tread protests might have to gain any traction. You are turning your backs on the civil disobedience and the blood, sweat, and tears of the people who came before us and fought for a brighter future and won. Your forebearers are rolling in their graves.
While I'm not unhinged about this policy, I am quite concerned about what this policy means for our future, the possibilities of scope creep in its enforcement, and setting a precedent that other schools might hold in high regard and follow to suppress and oppress their communities.
reply