I support this resolution, as it makes an unequivocal statement in support of free expression and the right to protest, and looks to ensure students are included in discussions on free speech and the new code of conduct

As President Pollack mentioned in her presentation to the Student Assembly, there remains a need to unequivocally protect the right to free speech to ensure that all voices can be heard and that no one is left out. I completely support this resolution and hope to see it passed unanimously.

This comment is submitted on behalf of the Cornell Review, a student run newspaper.

UA resolution 7 raises the question of freedom of speech and the right to protest. We believe the resolution doesn't adequately address the right to be heard or existing limitations of freedom of speech at Cornell. Does freedom of speech mean anything if protestors can simply drown it out? It's easy to imagine a dystopian Cornell where freedom of speech and protest is technically respected but meaningless. Consider a speaker who is permitted to speak, but a siren overrides his words every time he opens his mouth. Or the protestor who is permitted to protest, but only in private rooms with no windows or witnesses. The resolution needs to be more specific about the right not only to physically speak or protest but also the right for that speech/protest to be heard and seen.

Many may think such a right is implicit in the right to speech, and too obvious to be mentioned. However, that right was not obvious to the students who disrupted the Coulter event in November, nor to the 36% of Cornell students who said in a FIRE survey that it is sometimes acceptable to shout down speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus. (Conversely, only 36% of students said such conduct was never acceptable.)

Further, the existing regulation of free expression between students at Cornell is very troubling. The assembly would do well to consider addressing these regulations in addition to what it covered in resolution. We posted our ideas on this topic in our article "Freedom of Expression Between Students Needs Protection," and ask that the article be incorporated in full into the record of the UA's deliberations."

Links:

Fire Survey: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/college.pulse/viz/2022CollegeFre…

Review Article: https://www.thecornellreview.org/freedom-of-expression-between-students…

Cullen O'Hara
Co-Editor-in-Chief | Cornell Review

I'm writing to express my support for Resolution 7, as I feel it is essential for the university to adopt a strong stance in support of the right to protest for all Cornellians. Given the work of groups on campus such as the Cornel ACLU surrounding the right to protest on campus, this resolution would demonstrate administrative support for those efforts.

I would also like to express my support for Resolution 7 as it explicitly incorporates students, faculty, and employees in all university-wide discussions on free expression and the right to protest, addressing ambiguities in the new code of conduct. It is imperative that all members of the Cornell community are given a voice in decisions that impact them, and I feel this resolution would enable that.

I hope that Resolution 7 passes as soon as possible.

I completely support Resolution 7: the Right to Protest. It is an essential to all Cornellians.

As the right to free expression on Cornell campus is becoming increasingly at the attention of students and faculty, this resolution is important in enshrining students' abilities to engage in forms of peaceful means of demonstration on campus. This resolution conveys to students that the university unequivocally supports students' rights to freely express their opinions without concerns of arbitrary retaliation.

I am in support of Resolution 7. Right to protest, specifically student right to protest, is an integral component of democratic discourse. Students have historically been at the forefront of national protests (i.e., against US involvement in Vietnam), and their voices have helped shape national discussions of critical issues. It is essential that the University actively demonstrates its support for student right to protest, especially in light of President Pollack's recent announcement of free speech and academic freedom as a theme for the 2023-2024 school year.

I absolutely support Resolution 7 and hope it will be passed shortly. The right to protest is an essential right that cannot be taken away, and Cornell should demonstrate their support by passing this resolution. Students, faculty, and employees should all be included in discussions about the right to protest and freedom of expression.

The right to protest is an essential right that must be present on a university campus, and this resolution establishes its importance at Cornell.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on Resolution #7 The Right to Protest.

The comments of the Concerned Alumni could not be posted without the loss of formatting and links. So, we have posted a PDF version of our comments here: https://tinyurl.com/yk9ssxyu

We ask that the entire comments be incorporated into the record based upon the posted PDF. To give the reader a quick idea of the contents, our recommendations are:

a) Throughout the resolution, change “right to protest” to “right to lawful protest.”

b) Reaffirm the Campus Code of Conduct text pertaining to freedom of expression and the scope of protests in Title I Article III(A) and (B).

c) Add a resolved clause that the “heckler’s veto” is currently not allowed under the Student Code or under the First Amendment case law.

d) Endorse the Kalven Report.

Respectfully submitted,
Robert C Platt ‘73, Law ‘76, Member of the Constituent Assembly and the University Senate (1969-76)
Eli Lehrer ‘98, Member, Student Assembly (A&S), 96-97.

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))

So 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))