Office of the Assemblies

Thank you for conveying to me University Assembly Resolution #7 (“Right to Free Expression”).  

I appreciate the assembly’s focus on the issue of free expression, which of course is not only one of Cornell’s core values but also the focus of our themed year beginning next semester. I commend the UA for its interest in working with the administration and others across campus to help foster a greater appreciation for free expression in all its complexities. 

I am explicitly neither accepting nor rejecting UA#7. While there are parts of the resolution that are very much aligned with the university’s official policy on free expression, there are other parts that are problematic.

It is true that Cornell values free expression, that the community has historically thrived while entertaining all viewpoints, and that the right to protest and demonstrate has been an important catalyst for change. It is also true that being a community of belonging is another of our core values and that attacking someone on the basis of race, religion, gender, or the other personal characteristics referenced in the resolution runs counter to that core value. There is no question that our campus community must face the challenge of honoring these two core values, even though they can sometimes be in tension. Former Cornell Law School Dean Eduardo Peñalver provides an excellent overview of how universities can work to meet this challenge. 

However, there are other parts of the resolution that I cannot support. For example:

• There is no “Cornell Code of Conduct” (lines 43, 77). There is a Student Code of Conduct and the aforementioned Cornell Policy Statement on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression. Both were carefully crafted to address, among many things, the tensions that can exist between free expression and a commitment to being a community of belonging, and they cannot be overridden by blanket language in the UA resolution about what may or may not violate “Cornell’s Code of Conduct.” In particular, the Student Code of Conduct and our core values specifically protect even speech that some may find offensive and notes that even offensive conduct is not always harassment.
• The wording in lines 51-52—that “any attempts to prevent students, faculty, and employees from holding others accountable for their words should be condemned”—is problematic. Consider for example, the case of a group of students shouting down a speaker whose words they find objectionable. That could be viewed as their “holding that speaker accountable,” and thus, per this resolution, attempts to stop them from their disruptive behavior should be condemned. But, of course, our aforementioned policies specifically prohibit such interfering with the speaker’s lawful exercise of freedom of speech. 
• The intention behind and scope of “fact-finding” (line 71) is not clear, nor is it clear what is meant by “develop[ing] concrete plans to support and engage directly with . . . efforts to keep free expression and the right to protest front of mind across the Cornell community” (line 71). If the UA’s intent is to convey that the assembly will act within its appropriate authority delegated by the Board of Trustees, e.g., through passing resolutions that propose actions related to free speech, then that is fine; but that intent needs to be clarified.

The purpose of our announcing a themed year of free expression is to ensure that all constituencies on campus have an opportunity to “openly [discuss] the most difficult and pressing issues relating to free expression and the right to protest. . . as well as creating spaces for intergroup communication” (lines 81-82). That is a sentiment I strongly support.

Sincerely,

Martha E. Pollack