Encampment Policy

As many have expressed, the new policy continues down the path of overpolicing dissent to the point of rendering the supposedly revered style of nonviolent protest completely without teeth. As a cap to this, I'd like to specifically call out the new policy that limits outdoor protest encampments to less than one week. There are significant historical moments at Cornell in which encampments (whether indoor or outdoor) were used in an attempt to protest and sway University policy. Many are even documented with apparent pride on Cornell Websites—the lasting positive changes after the Willard Straight Hall takeover in 1969, for instance. I also recall sit-ins and outdoor encampments that successfully led to Darfur divestments or the ones that attempted to encourage divestment from Apartheid South Africa. Cornell University cannot only uphold the beauty of student protest to render positive change in retrospect. Under current policies, the ability to affectively demonstrate against University actions is essentially nil. And any upholding of historic protest is a hypocitical spit in the face to any students currently dreaming of a more just future on our campus.

reply

Expressive activity policy and the over regulation of protest

The expressive activity policy in its current state, aligns itself with dominant white perspectives on the appropriate ways to express opinion and particularly dissent. It expressly prohibits activities that have been used by communities of color, especially Black communities, to conduct protest. In particular, the registration of all indoor expressive activities allows for them to be regulated by Cornell, disallowing sit ins and other peaceful methods that are unable to achieve university sanction. Of course, the natural response is that those activities would likely be approved, but this is rarely the case when a large institution with significant clout and financial backing from opposing forces meets with a comparatively small group of individuals with impassioned beliefs but limited power. As it is, this policy provides numerous ways for the University to curtail the expression of individuals who do not align with its mission. Unfortunately instead of addressing the harm done to Jewish students particularly through heinous online threats last semester, this policy curtails the ability of all students to gather and peacefully protest without fear of retribution. 

reply

Anti democratic and absurd

The release of these “policies” the very same year that the administration is touting free speech is Orwellian. Cornell has a long and robust tradition of civic engagement. These policies solve problems that do not exist and were undoubtedly developed at the behest of reactionary donors wanting to restrict particular viewpoints. Inevitably these minutiae based policies will result in viewpoint discrimination in their enforcement. It’s not too late to admit a mistake and reverse the implementation of these poorly constructed, anti democratic policies.

reply

Elephant in the room

I want to take this opportunity to lament the absence of any mention of a big elephants in the room: the intimidation and censorship of Chinese students on our campus, carried out by the Chinese regime through on-campus monitoring coupled with direct and indirect harassment of dissident Chinese students and their families at home. Secrecy is, of course, the hallmark of the Chinese authorities, but the pattern is well known from many US campuses and it starts with consulate (= Communist Party) control of the 'Chinese student and scholars associations' and Communist Party members forming cells, and proceeds from there with monitoring and reporting of dissenting students -- Purdue U is, famously, one of the campuses where this has burst into the open, https://propublica.org/article/purdue-president-condemns-tactics-used-to-censor-chinese-students-on-u-s-campuses ; at Columbia, something happened that made the administration go so far as to disband the CSSA, it was done in secret with no media reporting, but may have involved the CSSA going too far even for permissive US campus administrators who prefer to close an eye to these on-campus operations. At Cornell we know of the incident when a student tired of the situation of a tightly controlled and pro-government politicized "student club" told some friends he was going to start a new a-political Chinese social club -- but before he could even start organizing it, he was called up on his private cell phone and was directly discouraged by the consulate minders, who had obtained his number from their agents on our campus grounds. All around, we here of incidents of students detained at home for things they said on social media abroad; Cornell maintains an account on the heavily state-monitored and censored Chinese WeChat platform, encouraging Cornellians to sign up and participate there, with no warnings whatsoever that if you say anything, you better make sure you're not criticizing the regime, its genocide of the Uyghurs, its crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, or the like; but if we're maintaining such an account, why don't we even warn Cornell students to keep any opinions to themselves, if they are on there? Is that we feel safe that everyone is already properly educating to be silent and not speak their mind?   

--Several times, I have communicated this situation to the Cornell administration and to the university president, to suggest remedies, but there are no replies and no mention of the Chinese "elephant" in any of the administration-arranged free speech events al this year. The top members of our university's administration are often in China, wined and dined by the very regime that intimidates our students, and I have never heard of them either objecting to the Chinese government authorities' presence and actions on our campus, or of the atrocities under way in today's genocide China. Perhaps they are protective of the deep financial and business ties to China entertained by Cornell and/or its board members; this linkage is perhaps best symbolized by the Cornell administration's 'China center' which for years has listed the boss of Tencent as an advisor to Cornell -- this is the boss of one of the companies most deeply involved in the Uyghur genocide, in setting up the largest ethno-racist profiling program anywhere in the world, and enabling the genocide launched in 2017 -- concidentally, without a single word about it from Cornell.

Thinking about our Chinese students in this context, we should remember above all that many of our Chinese students came to the US hoping that here, they might now have the freedom of speech they are denied at home. But, no. The censorship goes on in upstate NY, in NYC, and all over. "They" are here, "they" win, and we do ... nothing? Say nothing? Or even try to cover it up by pretending silence is a "cultural preference"?

BTW, as for the new policy restricting protests: a ban on anonymous protest is obviously not going to help with the "elephant" I am talking about here 

Magnus Fiskesjö (student of things Chinese, since 1977; but due to the recent lawless kidnappings, no longer a visitor to China)

reply

The Interim Policy is Unworkable

The interim policy as it stands is entirely wrong-headed, and runs counter to the idea of Cornell being a place where expression is valued.

From the jump, the text of the policy reveals that its writers are disinterested in having protest activities on campus at all:

"Expressive activity may not compromise public safety, impede the free movement of people or vehicles, damage university property, or interfere with regular university operations, as determined by the university.   In addition to this Policy, expressive activity must also comply with all applicable university policies and with facility rules and regulations, including but not limited to occupancy limits, fire codes, and hours of operation. Expressive activity that unreasonably interferences with another’s quiet enjoyment of their living space is not permitted."
(Copied from the Interim Policy page 2024-02-16)

The text of this paragraph is strongly implying (and arguably stating) the concept that only defanged protests are allowable. Under this paragraph, two of the most peaceable forms of protests would be considered counter to university policy; sit-ins and teach-ins (impeding free movement/interfering with regular university operations) would be held counter to policy, while the die-in format is already being removed and disrupted in a way that seems to imply it too is counter to university policy.

Similarly, later elements of the text seem to forbid vigil activities through a ban on candles and lamps. I am also seconding concerns raised here by other members of the Cornell community in the ban on sticks or poles; does this constitute a ban on signs held on sticks or poles? The text seems laughably unclear regarding this very crucial point.
Later text also states that "...posters, signs and banners larger than 8” x 11” should be made from flame retardant materials"; this seems to be an outright ban on large banners or signs, unless the university is planning on making the price of this material affordable for student use. Secondarily, I am interested in how the university plans to handle the disposal of this material in an environmentally-conscious fashion.
Much of this text seems to be written in the concerned tone of public safety, but neglects to weigh in on biosafety. Would students be penalized for wearing masks or bandannas that aim to stop the spread of infectious disease or allergens?

As many others have pointed out, this policy leaves large gaps in 1) how this policy would be enforced, and 2) what violations are sanctionable.
How will the university actually determine who was engaged in the protest? Is the plan to involve police, campus or otherwise? Is there a plan in place for how this would impact international student visa holders (or are they implicitly discouraged from protesting so as not to risk their visa)? From the employee side, as well; are there employees with the bandwidth to process all of this enforcement? Cornell has a long, long history of running a lean crew, and many employees are already doing the work that 20 years ago was done by three colleagues; how would enforcing this policy impact the regular functions of the university?
From the sanctions side, will there be a system of escalating severity, or is one action enough to warrant expulsion or termination of financial support (and would the latter be legally sound in the case of federal financial aid)? How would students be notified of the consequences; are there plans for some form of mandatory teaching module, or will this be an unpleasant surprise? Is there a process in place for appeals, if a student is caught up in a sweep by mistake?

None of those questions have simple answers. That many more could and have been listed by other members of the community point to this policy being at best slapdash, and at worst, a hamfisted crackdown with the intent to silence and sanitize campus discourse. Making a decision to police activity incentivizes the policing body to find any small infraction, which would then be used to silence or remove protest; this is a known commodity of policed systems, as evidenced by a ripe history of police injustice in the United States. I have no desire to see Cornell become a place where students are double- or triple-checking themselves before leaving their dorm, to ensure that they would not be seen as being in violation of an opaque and inflexible policy.

At its core, protest is a disruptive activity. If the idea of acceptable protest is an ignoreable protest, one that does not provide a challenge, is scheduled in advance, and can be easily removed from view, then the culture being established is one where it is unacceptable to protest.

Let us engage with a thought experiment.
If protest is unacceptable due to disruptive effects, how then will concerns with Cornell's policies be voiced? Other commenters in this have noted the role of sustained student pressure that brought Cornell to the table on sustainable energy. Large institutions with financial stake are often loathe to change their positions, for fear of losing money or rich investors, but sometimes these changes are necessary to preserve or to create a world worth living in.
So, if protests like those held during the Kyoto Protocols would now likely be in violation, how would students be able to exercise their voice? Would students be able to have voting power on Cornell's board, perhaps? Would Cornell open all policy decisions to a vote by the whole community, staff and students alike?

If protests are disallowed, there needs to be another avenue to expression. This is non-negotiable. Without a way to voice concerns and create change, the medium of protest will move elsewhere that could prove even more disruptive, probably in an online dimension.

And to be clear; this is written by someone who was horrified at the threat of an active shooter on campus this past year, one who expressed interest in targeting my community. Policing protest activity does not make anyone safer; just ask the city of Portland, OR how well their increased crackdown on protests has gone.
The tension on campus will not be solved by making students unable to express themselves; when people can't express themselves one way, they will turn to other ways that may be more dangerous. From my experience, I have seen greater deescalation as a result of dinners and dialogues than I have from forbidding student activism; I'd rather time and effort go into chances to talk with one another, than into obtuse policies with incredible risk to harm vulnerable groups.

reply

Eligibility to sponsor guests

My questions concern the following paragraph from Section II ("Scope"):

"To become sponsored university guests for purposes of this Policy, external groups or individuals must be formally sponsored by one of the following: (a) a college or school, academic department, or administrative unit of the university; (b) a registered university-sponsored student organization and its affiliated office/department/unit; (c) a registered independent student organization; or (d) a Cornell shared governance body (e.g., Faculty Senate, the assemblies). No other Cornell individuals or groups may sponsor university guests for expressive activities."

My questions are: How is narrowly is "administrative unit" defined? Does this policy preclude sponsorship of guests by e.g. programs, interdepartmental working groups, labs, and / or seminars? If so, whence the need to restrict the current normal science of discourse & collaboration, both among scholars at Cornell and with the broader scholarly community?

reply

Questions about the Interim Expressive Activity Policy

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the Interim Expressive Activity Policy (the “Policy”). Below I have tried to clarify some my questions about both the process and the substance of the Policy. Certainly I well appreciate the challenges of crafting a policy that attends to Cornell’s obligations to maintain an environment that is safe from harm while also preserving the university’s sine qua non of inquiry, dialogue, and contestation. The stakes here are high and it's important to proceed with great care on both the process and substance. To that end:

Process Questions

Status of Faculty Senate consultation. During the February 6th University Assembly (UA) meeting, the consultation process that had been followed in drafting the Policy was outlined. Consultation with the Faculty Senate, or anything approaching it, was lacking from that list. Professor Risa Lieberwitz, a Faculty Senator representing the ILR School, indicated that there had been no consultation with the Faculty Senate regarding the Policy at all. Cornell’s Policy 4.1 on the Formulation and Issuance of University Policies provides that “key stakeholders … will be consulted during the policy drafting process.” That neither the Faculty Senate nor any subpart thereof were consulted would seem to indicate the belief that the faculty qua faculty are not key stakeholders, which to me seems wrongheaded. So my questions here are:

• What was the rationale for excluding the Faculty Senate from consultation in formulating the Policy? 
• What consultative procedures will be followed for purposes of arriving at a "non-interim," final version of the Policy?

Need for a clear Statement of Explanation identifying what is new and different in the Policy. It would seem that good rulemaking practice, and good governance principles, would require any promulgation of new rules to identify what is new about a revised policy, so affected communities can clearly understand how they are impacted. Yet no such explanation (or at least, public explanation) appears to have accompanied the Policy. In addition to running contrary to good governance principles of transparency and accountability, this lack of explanation is also helping to facilitate a climate of confusion and, potentially, misinformation. At the February 6th UA meeting, it was suggested that much of the Policy was not new: one example of that was the prohibition against barring points of building ingress and egress. Yet at other times, it was acknowledged that some components of the Policy were new, such as the request for registration of posters. Without having a clear explanation of what is new and what isn’t, it is hard to make an informed assessment of the Policy’s implications. While interested actors can of course attempt this assessment on their own, the fact that the Policy entails revisions that implicate multiple preexisting rule sources renders accurate assessment difficult for even highly motivated researchers.  My understanding from reviewing Cornell’s Policy 4.1 on the Formulation and Issuance of University Policies is that an “impact statement” is required as part of any policy revision process, so one possibility would be simply to release for public review the impact statement that was presumably already created. So my questions here are:

• Will the University issue a Statement of Explanation to identify exactly which existing rules or guidelines are affected and revised by the Policy, and how they are changed or not changed?
• Will the University release for public review the impact statement that was required as part of the policymaking process?

Substance Questions

Need for clarity as to which aspects of the Policy are mandatory and/or sanctionable. At the February 6th UA meeting, it was emphasized that the Policy should be viewed as “educational.” This "educational" aspect was said to pertain to Policy elements such as the request for advance registration of events where attendance of more than 50 persons is anticipated. At the same time, several speakers from the floor pointed to the very broad scope of the Cornell Student Code of Conduct, especially section IV.H., “Failure to Comply” (also known as “Section H”).[1] The new Policy states that advance registration for events of more than 50 persons is “expected,”[2] and it was unclear whether a student could be subject to sanction for failing to provide such advance registration even if the Policy states the request for registration in “non-mandatory” terms. Unfortunately, I was not able to glean from the discussion whether the concerns about sanction under the new Policy were founded or unfounded. This may have been due to the large number of issues that were on the table for discussion, but I do think that it is important to let students and others know when a policy carries sanctions with it and potentially subjects them to disciplinary procedures for noncompliance. My questions here:

• Can students be sanctioned under the Cornell Student Code of Conduct for failure to comply with any aspects of the Policy?
• If so, will the University clarify which elements of the Policy are sanctionable?

Questions about whether particular restrictions constitute overreaching. Beyond these more general questions above, there were a number of particular aspects of the Policy that struck me as potentially overbroad and for which I would appreciate understanding more of the rationale. These are especially of concern if, per above, aspects of the Policy are mandatory/sanctionable rather than merely suggestive or “educational.” Such questions include the following:

• Ban on use of "sticks" or "poles" during outdoor demonstrations. The Policy contains a prohibition against the use of sticks or poles at outdoor demonstrations, because they might be used as weapons.[3] My questions here are straightforward:
  • Is a student who carries a classic stick-mounted rally sign to a demonstration on Cornell’s campus subject to the Code of Conduct or other sanction for carrying a potential weapon?
  • Does the University intend to enforce this aspect of the Policy against sticks or poles that are used to hold protest signs?

• Ban on posting anonymous expression on campus. The Policy contains a requirement that any poster, sign, flyer or banner posted anywhere on campus must carry identifying information for the group or individual who “sponsored” it.[4]  It was explained at the February 6th UA meeting that the university is attempting to ensure that it is taking due measures to prevent a hostile environment that could be created if some actors post messages that would make other actors feel unsafe, but I did wonder whether this prohibition of any anonymous speech constituted overreaching. It seems to me that the university could follow a protocol similar to those applied to monitoring online discussions, where a statement that causes concern can be flagged to/by the appropriate university monitor, and then action can be taken to remove the statement. While I am not an expert in this area, a "flagging" policy like that would arguably seem to constitute reasonable care on the part of the university in taking measures to protect against a hostile environment, without requiring all authors of posted messages to identify themselves. While I understand the impetus here, I would be concerned that this kind of requirement will have a chilling effect on campus speech. So my questions here are:
  • Does the ban on anonymous messaging constitute overbroad infringement on campus speech?
  • If not, why not?

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Chantal Thomas

Professor of Law

Cornell Law School

[1] Cornell Student Code of Conduct, p.7, Section IV.H., “Failure to Comply.” (“Failure to comply with:  1. A lawful directive of a University official within the scope of that person’s duties or employment; 2. A policy or operational rule that has been duly promulgated by the University or any college, department, or unit thereof, whether or not the policy has been issued in the standardized University format, including life safety regulations, technology regulations, and policies governing the conduct of registered and recognized student organizations (including fraternities, sororities, and living groups).”)

[2] Interim Expressive Activity Policy, Section III.B. (“Registration of outdoor events involving more than 50 people at the Ithaca, Cornell Tech, and Agritech campuses, or involving more than 15 people at the Weill Cornell Medicine NYC campus, is expected in certain community spaces to minimize the likelihood of conflicting events and to promote safety.”).

[3] Interim Expressive Activity Policy, Section III.B. ("Outdoor demonstrations may not... use sticks, poles, or other items that could be used as weapons.").

[4] Interim Expressive Activity Policy, Section III.D. ("All posters, signs, flyers and banners must ... include the name of the sponsoring Cornell organization or unit or individual…”).

reply

Civil discourse is a learned skilll

Has senior leadership considered developing a civility module - similar to the sustainability module (https://sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/take-action/student-resources/mission-sustainability-course) - that every incoming student is asked to participate in? This seems like an enormous learning opportunity that aligns with the university mission to create a community where any person is welcome. 

reply

Sometimes we must stand up and stand out

To provide a historical perspective on this conversation, I share the story of Cornell's Climate Action Plan. In this story, we see how student activism inspired the university administrators to commit to climate action. Today, Cornell has become a leader amongst its peers in seeking solutions to green its operations, get to net zero, and seek solutions to the thorny challenges of global climate change. 

Students are at the heart of Cornell’s sustainability story, and they were the spark behind the university’s first formal climate commitment in 2001. Here is the story behind this commitment, from the perspective of a few of the students (now alumni) and staff (many of whom are also Cornell alumni) who were involved in negotiating the commitment.

Abigail (Abby) Krich Starr ’04, MEng ’06 entered Cornell in the fall of 1999, when nations around the world were debating adoption of the Kyoto Protocol—a set of voluntary commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions. When the U.S. failed to commit to the Protocol, which called for a 7% reduction in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2008–2012, a group of Cornell students calling themselves Kyoto Now! (KN) asked the university to commit to this same level of reductions.

According to Lindsey Saunders ’04, Kyoto Now! was founded by several members of the Cornell Greens, a group of students interested in sustainability who had attended COP6 in November 2000 in the Hague, Netherlands. The students’ experience at the conference convinced them that the U.S. government was not taking responsibility for our country’s role as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases. The students believed that research institutions like Cornell could step in to fill the leadership void.

When the students returned to campus, they began working on a plan to get Cornell administrators to commit the university to its own version of the Kyoto Protocol. They named their group Kyoto Now! (KN). “Our name was distinctive and we made hundreds of buttons that raised dozens of questions per day,” Lindsey says. “We asked, ‘If not us, who? If not now, when?’”

“Cornell was uniquely positioned to make new investments in developing and implementing green technologies,” Lindsey says. “Cornell’s leadership could demonstrate the feasibility of reducing carbon emissions.”

A rally was organized each afternoon. “These events were vibrant social gatherings, where one could enjoy speeches, music, snacks, and joyful camaraderie,” says Doug Krisch ’99, MRP ’03, one of the KN student organizers.

“The students caught a moment in time,” says Lanny Joyce ’81, retired director of Utilities and Energy Management for the university. “They asked the question, ‘Can Cornell adopt a Kyoto pledge, as if we were the U.S.?’”

In early 2001, KN members met with Cornell faculty, facilities managers, and administrators to discuss their request, but were unable to secure a commitment. The students decided to hold a press conference and stage a sit-in at Day Hall. Six core members of KN were joined by hundreds of students throughout the next week (April 12-18, 2001), during which they maintained a 24-hour presence outside Day Hall. They collected nearly 5,000 student signatures in support of their effort.

“Students showed their overwhelming support for Cornell to take action on the pressing topic of our time,” Lindsey says, adding, “This support helped in our ongoing negotiations with the administrators. We pushed for Cornell to make a commitment that would signal real action.”

Susan Murphy ’73, PhD ’94, then vice president for Student and Academic Services, helped to negotiate with the protestors, who subsequently agreed to leave Day Hall when the building closed for the day and not to obstruct access to the building during business hours. Susan recalls driving to campus on Saturday morning, “to wake up the students sleeping in their tents before the Saturday a.m. campus tour, because I was sure they would sleep in (and indeed, they were all asleep). Everyone was very cooperative,” she says.

Harold (Hal) D. Craft ’60, PhD ’70, then vice president for Administration and chief financial officer of Cornell, had to move quickly to respond to the students. Hal had been deeply involved with energy projects at the university for about twenty years, in his prior position as vice president for Facilities and Campus Services. “I was one of the major negotiators for the senior administration,” Hal says, “since the issue in question fell squarely within my responsibilities.” He reached out to Lanny Joyce, to see if the reductions the students were asking for were possible.

Lanny managed supply-side energy planning for the university, as well as energy management of the physical plant—its buildings and associated infrastructure. At the time, Lanny had recently completed the Lake Source Cooling project, an innovative effort to cool campus by relying on a naturally renewable source of chill, namely the deep water of Cayuga Lake. He believed that the university had a tremendous opportunity to reduce its energy use through conservation measures, so he was receptive to investigating the student’s request.

“We were all so illiterate,” Lanny recalls, explaining that no one had ever done a greenhouse gas inventory for Cornell. He pulled together his team of two engineers and they completed the inventory within a matter of hours. “First, we had to figure out how much carbon dioxide comes from burning a ton of coal, we had to inventory all of our energy use, and then we had to try to project the university’s growth (and associated impacts on emissions) through the 2008–2012 deadline,” he says, adding, “We looked back at the past 11 years and made an educated guess.”

“For several years, KN members delivered a ton of coal to Ho Plaza on Earth Day,” Lanny says. “They asked passersby how long that amount of coal would operate a hair dryer—and everyone was always surprised to learn that it was not that long. Letting other students see and touch the coal helped promote climate literacy on campus.” Lanny did the math and, according to his calculations, burning one ton of coal would run a 1500-watt hair dryer for about 60 days, and produce two tons of carbon dioxide.

“For several years, KN members delivered a ton of coal to Ho Plaza on Earth Day,” Lanny says. “They asked passersby how long that amount of coal would operate a hair dryer—and everyone was always surprised to learn that it was not that long. Letting other students see and touch the coal helped promote climate literacy on campus.” Lanny did the math and, according to his calculations, burning one ton of coal would run a 1500-watt hair dryer for about 60 days, and produce two tons of carbon dioxide.

Lanny explains that, at that time, Cornell had about 150 buildings of varying ages and varying degrees of efficiency. Just as regular preventative maintenance on a car can greatly improve the efficiency of the vehicle over time, Lanny thought that Cornell could realize significant energy and cost savings by implementing routine preventative maintenance on its buildings. According to his team’s estimates, Cornell could make Kyoto-equivalent reductions in its emissions by the deadline—if it adopted an aggressive energy conservation program and transitioned away from burning coal. He told Hal that the answer to the students’ question was yes.

Hal says that, looking back on the situation today, his main sticking point was “the absolute commitment to a goal when I had no concrete idea either about the potential future university growth (which has been substantial), or what further mitigation steps might be taken or the university’s tolerance for them.” He adds that, “I recall being in complete agreement with the student activists regarding energy conservation and reduction.”

“Late at night the students often sat in circles, singing, talking, or having a brainstorm meeting,” says Doug.

“The goals of the Kyoto Now! protest were hard to argue against,” Susan agrees. “Often you are asked to make decisions with incomplete data or knowledge. I think the student energy on this topic brought the issue to the forefront and led the administration to take a stand,” she says.

Hal explains prior to the Kyoto Now! protest, much of the work to reduce energy consumption on campus had been done behind the scenes. “The work up to that point had been cost-effective and relatively invisible to the campus community,” he says. “I believe that student activism was important and perhaps critical, to bringing to the fore important stuff that was already underway, increasing its visibility and its support throughout the community.”

Lindsey says that KN’s winning strategy was to make a global challenge a local one. “We targeted our own institution to take action. We researched and learned, met with people all over campus, and had an excellent branding campaign: Kyoto Now!,” she says. “We demonstrated that the administration had broad support for committing to be the leader we all knew Cornell could be.”

Doug Krisch ’99, MRP ’03, one of the core group of KN student organizers, says that the students kept negotiating with administrators until they reached an agreement they felt had “teeth”: “We continued until we felt they committed to the standards of the Kyoto Protocol,” Doug says.

“Cornell was the first major nongovernmental institution to voluntarily commit to the Kyoto Protocol standards for greenhouse gas emissions reduction,” says Frankie Abralind ’01, another core member of KN. “This was an incredibly significant event, and it came via a student-led campaign,” he says.

On April 17, 2001, Hal issued a statement affirming Cornell’s commitment to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. Here is an excerpt:

“Let there be no mistake about it: the attainment of a reduction by 2008 of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions attributable to campus activities to levels 7 percent less than what they were in 1990 will not only be very difficult, it may be unable to be reached despite our best efforts. Nonetheless, the standards established by the Kyoto Protocol serve as a standard for communities as well as nations to emulate. With this in mind, I hereby commit Cornell University to do everything within its ability, consistent with the university’s obligations for teaching, research, service and extension, to implement the Kyoto Protocol standards and to issue a regular report on our progress.”

Hal’s statement concluded with a promise to form a committee comprised of faculty, staff, and students that would be charged with implementing the reductions. In hindsight, Hal believes that the students who served on this committee greatly benefited from the experience of working through “the realities of trying to implement a major physical program or societal change.” Abby couldn’t agree more.

Abby recalls bringing gallons of hot chocolate to the members of Kyoto Now! who were camped outside. “I wasn’t one of the students camped out, but I marched and sang with them in the street, and raised my hand to work with the implementation team to figure out how Cornell could actually meet its commitment once Vice President Craft made it,” she says. “It’s what led me to the career I am in, working in renewable energy and trying to shift the wholesale electricity markets system to enable large-scale integration of clean energy.”

Abby says that the mechanics of how to achieve Cornell’s climate commitment were what attracted her to support KN, and to raise her hand to serve as one of two students on the Kyoto Task Team. Lanny Joyce spearheaded the new team, which consisted of a few university engineers, faculty members, and student volunteers.

The task team met bi-weekly, and Lanny says that they had great discussions. The meetings were very democratic and everyone was treated equally, he explains. He encouraged the students to make suggestions and ask questions. “Any idea was fair game, as long as it made single bottom-line sense,” Lanny says. Lanny had a small budget—a few hundred thousand dollars—but what he describes as “a huge task to accomplish.”

At first, the team focused on projects which did not spend money, but instead saved the university money. They were able to realize significant cost and energy savings through preventative maintenance on poorly performing buildings. Within a few years, they began upgrading the control systems in these buildings to increase energy efficiency. “All of these early projects yielded a 5- to 10-year payback on investment,” Lanny reports.

Lanny feels that his work with the Kyoto Task Team was a highlight of his career. “The students on the team were passionate, but they were willing to learn and understand the math, physics, and science behind energy production and use,” he says. Lanny especially loved working with Abby, whom he credits with bringing the first solar installation to campus. “Solar wouldn’t have happened if she hadn’t been so reasonable, so compromising, and so knowledgeable,” he says, adding, “and now we have 10MW solar installations!”

Abby served on the Kyoto Task Team from fall 2001 through her graduation in May 2004. She recalls pressing for more supply-side change. “We were very focused on reducing energy usage and promoting efficiency,” Abby says. “I remember wanting the university to do both—to conserve and to use clean energy.” She worked with other students, including a few MBA candidates, to craft proposals to install solar panels and build a wind farm to help power campus, but these proposals were rejected.

Kyoto Now! faculty advisor, Professor Zelman Warhaft, received a donation of 90 used solar panels from Richard Aubrecht ’66, MEng ’68, PhD ’70, former vice president of Moog Corporation and trustee emeritus of Cornell. Lanny and Abby tested the panels and verified that they were still productive, and Abby stepped up her efforts to get these panels installed at Cornell.

She recalls meeting with Lanny and then with Hal Craft to try to “break the log jam” for a solar installation on campus. At one meeting at Hal’s office in Day Hall, Abby gazed out the window at the building’s flat roof. “I asked him if we could put the panels there,” she recalls. Hal replied that they would need to confirm that the building was structurally sound enough to accommodate the solar installation. “I asked him, ‘What if the building is structurally sound, and what if we raised the money to fund the installation?’ And he said ok.” This conversation happened in the spring of Abby’s senior year, shortly before she graduated.

Structural analysis showed that the roof of Day Hall could accommodate the panels. In honor of her graduation, Abby and her family created the Krich Family Solar Fund to support a portion of the cost of installing solar panels on campus. About 30 other alumni also contributed to the fund. With the panels and seed funding in hand, Abby secured the administration’s approval to proceed. She recalls that Rob Garrity ’05, a Cornellian who worked for a local solar company, assisted with the design, and the Electrician’s Union’s apprentice class donated their time to help with the installation. “It was a real group effort to get this job done,” Abby says.

Abby hopes that the Day Hall solar installation helped to shift attitudes toward solar energy at Cornell. “I always like to think that having the administrators sitting there looking out at the panels from their offices influenced their thought processes. I never heard again that they were ugly. From then on,” she says, “Cornell really made a commitment to sustainability.”

Abby says her persistence and dedication to do what’s right have paid off. “Ever since my days as an undergrad at Cornell, I try to do my homework. I know what I’m asking for and what it means,” she says. “I don’t know how many times I asked to put solar panels on campus. When they said no, I just kept asking. This was the best possible training for what I do now!”

Speaking to current Cornell students, Abby advises them to seek out and create their own paths. “Job listings are not the extent of what you can do,” she says. “Go to conferences, talk to people, create projects on campus, ask for what you want, and make your own opportunities.”

Abby’s and Cornell’s sustainability success stories are set against a backdrop of sobering scientific realities—including record high greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, and a 2021 UN analysis indicating that the global commitments made under the Paris Agreement will fail to keep global warming under 1.5C in this century.

Bruce Monger, director of undergraduate studies for Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, says that he always shares Abby’s story with his students, as an example of what they can accomplish. Bruce teaches Introductory Oceanography—among the largest and most popular courses at Cornell.

“Abby’s story shows them that they can have a real, lasting impact on making a better world,” Bruce says. “I tell them, ‘Think of the lifelong rewards and warm emotional glow you will feel if you act today. This is how you want to feel as you grow old and grey.’”

“The Kyoto Now! students were passionate about a problem that will plague their generation even more than mine, so frankly, I applaud their push,” says Susan Murphy, adding, “I think it helped move an otherwise slower-moving institution toward action. And, as Abby demonstrated, the students were not just active politically in this area, they also were active intellectually and through their work. When that happens, they are real partners.”

Lindsey Saunders is proud of Cornell for the investments it has made in climate action in the 20 years since she took part in the 2001 Kyoto Now! protest. “The progress made over the years has been lauded and is laudable,” she says. “But it is important to remember that it needed a solid, public nudge to make that commitment.”

“If we want to contribute to the trajectory of our schools, our communities, our families, our cities, we must often stand up and stand out,” agrees Doug Krisch. “When I look back at the Kyoto Now! images from twenty years ago, it fills my heart with such joy. It all began with a handful of students who were very interested in pushing Cornell to be an environmental leader,” he says.

reply

University Policy 4.23. Interim Expressive Activity Policy

University Policy 4.23. Interim Expressive Activity Policy

General comment: this appears an example of attempted regulatory and control over-reach to address problems that largely do not exist—indeed the interim policy attempts contrary the First Amendment to restrict “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and to abridge the freedom of speech. Current Cornell policies and relevant state and federal laws are largely adequate to protect persons and property and to prevent/prosecute incitement/threats/violence/harassment, topics which should be a concern for the university and the state (to make a case that these issues are not covered: explain exactly what is not currently adequate). What is inadequate is clarity of leadership, communication, and education to encourage (on campus, where Cornell has some ability to encourage in the present, and in society generally where Cornell and Cornellians can hope to influence positively now and in the future) respect for all groups and beliefs and to value different and plural viewpoints and, in particular, to increase understanding of the history, context, and causes of racism, religious persecution, hate speech, intolerance and all forms of harassment. And so, hopefully, to reduce/end these and improve lives and the world in general. This, rather than attempts to restrict and control freedom of expression, should be the aim of a university. The Interim Expressive Activity Policy fails usefully to address the real threats and problems around hate speech, racism, religious persecution, intimidation/harassment, and, in particular, at present: antisemitism or Islamophobia. What the proposed interim policies will do, contrary the stated aims of Cornell University and very particularly in the supposed year of “…Freedom of Expression at Cornell” (https://statements.cornell.edu/2023/20230417-free-expression.cfm), is restrict freedom of expression and speech rights on campus. Why? This interim policy seeks to create new requirements and hurdles that will restrict spontaneous and practical expressive activity on campus. Yet, almost by definition, if there is a cause rightly needing protest and “expressive activity” then, to begin at least, this should be spontaneous and immediate since, if it is important, it should be protested and expressed about as soon, and as visibly, and loudly as possible. The analogy is medical: if there is an injury you do not want first responders to have to apply for permission to register before doing anything, to limit the number of responders, to delay action while obtaining flame retardant bandages and signs, and generally to be delayed in reacting. What Cornell is trying to do with the Interim Expressive Activity Policy is to limit and restrict exactly the types of spontaneous freedom of expression that we claim to support such as: Black Lives Matter protests and movement, Women’s Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, etc., etc.

In general this Interim Expressive Activity Policy is contrary the long-stated aims and values of Cornell and all liberal democratic principles (where belief in freedom of expression does not just mean for ourselves but includes for those we disagree with). All persons and property should be protected and threats, incitement to violence, and hate speech stopped, but, at the same time, there should be a maximum freedom of expression. This Interim policy is an unfortunate, legalistic, and inappropriate response to the on-going tragedies over the past five months and will not serve to address nor contribute to solving the scourges of racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia, nor the other sources of discrimination and harassment within society and at Cornell around race, gender, identities and beliefs. This Interim policy is the result of a lack of prior discussion and consultation.

On specifics within the Interim Policy, others have noted a number of relevant points regarding inappropriate restrictions and requirements that stifle and in no way encourage freedom of expression or run against the history of the most important protests and vigils nationally and world-wide, e.g.:

https://cornellsun.com/2024/02/05/lieberwitz-statement-in-protest-of-the-cornell-university-interim-expressive-activity-policy/

One additional topic in the Interim Expressive Activity Policy, however, requires notice, comment, and protest. The Interim Expressive Activity Policy contains language in its Section II that seeks (or can enable) restriction of academic freedom – including in terms of classroom and curricula experiences – by faculty and freedom of expression by students and faculty and staff. This is the language in Section II 2nd-4th paragraphs which seeks to make it necessary for any expressive activity using university resources by Cornellians or sponsored university guests (like a seminar, lecture, performance, dialogue, debate, discussion, etc.) to be formally controlled by either academic units or registered student organizations. Thus, for example, individual faculty, even groups of faculty, may not invite a speaker to address a class or participate in a discussion or any activity on campus (physically or virtually) without prior ‘formal’ sponsorship by a College, School, Academic Department, or Administrative Unit of the University. The Interim Expressive Activity Policy states that “No other Cornell individuals or groups may sponsor university guests for expressive activities.” Such explicit stressing of control over the rights and choices of individual faculty or groups of faculty runs entirely against the academic freedom model—respecting relevant laws and freedom of speech requirements—that Cornell claims to represent and uphold. Indeed, this runs contrary the claim made by President Pollack and the University leadership that “It is important to note that the interim Expressive Activity Policy does not supersede classroom and curricular experiences, which are the purview of faculty” (https://statements.cornell.edu/2024/20240124-university-policies-under-development.cfm). Incorrect: since ability now to invite participation by a guest in a class discussion or seminar, for example, is no longer at the choice and discretion of the relevant teaching faculty members(s), but is at a minimum under the control of their Department Chair and cannot be spontaneous but only after a process. Indeed, because the Interim policy requires such sponsorship by managing entities this creates a whole new level of administrative interference/oversight and activity (and likely reporting and surveillance) that inevitably will reduce breadth of viewpoints, spontaneity of expression, and timely engagement with topics of concern. This can only limit and so harm the student experience. All this greatly changes the model of individual academic freedom held by every individual faculty member at Cornell. Again: this reflects a policy created without prior consultation and discussion.

reply