Resolution 7: UA R7: Right to Free Expression
Term | AY 2022-2023 |
---|---|
Assembly | University Assembly |
Status | Acknowledged by the President |
Abstract | This resolution urges the Administration to work with students, employees, and faculty to discuss and communicate enforcement of issues involving free expression. |
Resolution File | ua_resolution_7_-_right_to_free_expression.pdf |
Supporting Documents | |
Title | UA R7: Right to Free Expression |
Sponsors | Isaac Daniel Chasen (idc28), Shelby Lynn Williams (slw278), Duncan Allen Cady (dc932) |
Reviewing Committee |
I see that the website removed my paragraph breaks, so ...
Submitted by Arthur B. Spitzer on Sun, 2023-04-23 21:02So I'm re-posting with ¶ signs, in the hope of making my comments readable. ¶ In an effort to “strike a delicate balance,” Resolution 7 sends a message of ambiguity and, I fear, a message of support for those who would prevent or disrupt speech they find intolerable. ¶ The first seven “whereas” clauses make a very strong statement about the value of free expression on a university campus. “[E]ntertaining all viewpoints [and] respecting the views of others with whom we disagree . . . is what makes our institution welcoming to any person.” Likewise, the third “Resolved” clause calls upon the administration “to provide space and protection for the peaceful expression of all views and opinions.” This is excellent. ¶ But the eighth “whereas” clause (lines 39-43) seems to contradict all of this. Now, “any kind of communication,” no matter how peaceful, “that attacks or discriminates against a person or a group based on who they are . . . always violates our values and Cornell’s Code of Conduct.” ¶ The Resolution makes attempt to explain what kind of content would cause a peaceful communication to be an “attack” or “discrimination.” Many people interpret criticism directed at them (or at a group to which they belong) as an “attack,” and many people interpret policy positions at odds with their own policy positions about issues involving race, religion, gender, etc., as “discrimination.” For example, many people would label a speaker’s defense of the Supreme Court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade as an “attack” on women, and a speaker’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected as an “attack” on GLBTQ people. Many would label opposition to DEI expectations for faculty hiring and promotion as a form of racial discrimination, and would label opposition to trans women competing on women’s college athletic teams as a form anti-trans discrimination. It is not clear whether Resolution 7 agrees with those characterizations, but I think it is certain that people who want to suppress such speech will assert that it does, and they will not be clearly wrong. ¶ The Student Code is very clear that Cornell’s core values include the free expression “even of ideas some may consider wrong or offensive.” The expression of such ideas cannot be removed from this protection simply by labeling them as “attacks” or “discrimination.” If the eighth “whereas” clause is supposed to be a paraphrase of Section IV-J. of the Student Code, which prohibits “harassment” in a carefully defined way, it does not do a good job, and should be revised to say something like, “Whereas, communication that amounts to harassment as defined in the Student Code always violates our values and should be condemned wherever and whenever it occurs.” ¶ Equally ambiguous, and equally troubling, is the tenth “whereas” clause (lines 49-51), stating that “any attempts to prevent students, faculty, and employees from holding others accountable for their words should be condemned wherever and whenever it occurs.” “Accountable” is a word of many meanings. When people say, “Trump should be held accountable for January 6,” they usually mean he should be convicted of a crime and sent to prison. Of course, a speaker who violates the Code of Conduct can be held accountable (i.e., punished) by the disciplinary system after due process. But in what ways might individual students, faculty, and employees hold speakers “accountable” for their words? Whatever the drafters may have had in mind, I think this will be widely understood on campus as meaning that speakers can be “held accountable” by being blocked or disrupted. And the statement that “any attempts to prevent students, faculty, and employees from holding others accountable for their words should be condemned” sounds like it means “any attempt to discipline students, faculty, and employees from blocking or disrupting unpopular speakers should be condemned.” ¶ In that context, the tenth “whereas” clause’s curious juxtaposition of speech and protest as antithetical activities (“our community must learn to strike a delicate balance between the rights of those who wish to speak, and the rights of those who wish to protest”) begins to make sense. Protest, of course, is a form of speech, and speech is the means by which protesters articulate their concerns. But the Resolution apparently uses “protest” to mean protest against speech. Thus, in its “Resolved” clauses, the Resolution calls upon the administration to “safeguard[] free expression and the [apparently contrary] right to protest,” and supports efforts to ensure “accountability” (whatever that means) “for speech that violates our values.” ¶ People certainly have the right to engage in peaceful, nondisruptive protest against the expression of views they oppose. As the Student Code recognizes, “Inherent in this commitment [to free speech for ideas some consider offensive] is the corollary freedom to engage in reasoned opposition to messages to which one objects.” As Resolution 7 is drafted, however, I fear it will send the message that “speech that violates our values”—meaning the values held by most students and faculty—should be subject not only to reasoned opposition, but also to some unspecified form of “accountability” by students, faculty, and employees, and that any “attempt[] to prevent” unspecified actions holding unpopular speakers “accountable for their words” should be condemned. ¶ Accordingly, I hope the Assembly will not adopt the Resolution as submitted, but will revise it to make clear that peaceful speech must be protected even if some people label it as an “attack” or as “discrimination” (as long as it doesn’t violate the Code), and that actions to hold speakers “accountable for their words” are protected if they involve peaceful and non-disruptive expression, but not otherwise. ¶ Respectfully, Arthur Spitzer ’71 ¶ (By way of identification, I was the Speaker of the University Senate in its first session (1970-71) and a co-founder of the Cornell chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union (circa 1970))
reply