Most of my criticisms of the interim expressive activity policy have been stated, and stated well, below. As such, I'll begin by saying that I agree strongly in terms of how problematic this policy is, both in what it restricts and how it will be enforced.

I do want to make two points, though. First, the claims made at multiple town halls that this policy is in a "listening" or "public comment" period are disingenuous; this is an interim policy, not a proposed one. The policy is in effect, as we have seen with how student protesters are already being treated and in how staff have been explicitly told to enforce it.

Second, I am frustrated at the insistence that students targeted under this policy will have their cases be handled under a system of "restorative justice". While I would not claim to be a true scholar of the concept, I know of no valid frameworks of restorative justice that involves calling the cops on protestors.

I know that the Title VI investigation and external forces are putting the University under tremendous pressure. I ask that the administration rethink this policy as a method of addressing that pressure.

Thank you.

While much of the discussion has rightly focused on the Interim Expressive Activity Policy, there are also issues with the Interim Anti-Doxxing Policy that warrant further discussion.

1) The Interim Anti-Doxxing Policy still appears to provide less support for victims of targeted online harassment than was recommended by the Faculty Senate nearly three years ago: https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-ac…

2) There appears to be widespread confusion over what counts as “harassment” under the Interim Anti-Doxxing Policy, as evident in assertions made at recent Faculty Senate and Town Hall meetings calling protestors “harassers”.

3) There appears to be several typos and misleading statements in the Interim Anti-Doxxing Policy and the linked “[anti-?]doxxing resource guide.”

First, assuming that post-docs should be protected under the Interim Anti-Doxxing Policy, it should be revised to read: “Accordingly, a Cornell student, faculty member, post-doctoral trainee, or staff member will violate this policy if they knowingly make Restricted Personal Information about a Cornell student, faculty member, [POST-DOCTORAL TRAINEE,] or staff member publicly available.”

Second, in the Anti-Doxxing Resource Guide, the section on “Cornell University Policy” incorporates language verbatim from the Interim Expressive Activity Policy but taken out of context and without citing that source: “Cornellians should remember that they speak for themselves only and are responsible for their own speech.” The key part was left out: “When engaging in expressive activity, Cornellians should remember…” The effect here is to blame and threaten victims of targeted online harassment, who are not necessarily at fault for the harassment they receive.

Ultimately, we need to know more about how these two policies will inevitably affect each other and individuals exercising their rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression.