Letter to the Editor

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Making the impossible, possible

To the Editor:

Being my last year at Cornell, I just wanted to say a quick thank you to all whom made it possible. Between my mom, dad, my brother, the C.U. lift drivers, some of the great professors and Student Disability Services, Cornell was an experience I will never forget. The C.U. lift was a great asset that Cornell has; Mindy and Martha always went above and beyond what they were required to do. Not all C.U. lift drivers really care like Mindy and Martha, and without the C.U. lift, I doubt Cornell would’ve been feasible. The professors were a mixed bag, but there were some great ones I will never forget.

Letter to the Editor

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Cayuga’s Waiters Alumni respond to hazing allegations against on-campus group

To the Editor:

On April 25, Cornell released its findings on allegations of hazing by members of Cayuga’s Waiters, Cornell’s oldest all-male a cappella group. The 321-member Waiter alumni community are appalled by the incidents described in the findings. Until these allegations were leveled, hazing was never part of Cayuga’s Waiters culture. Waiter alumni stand with Cornell in condemning hazing unequivocally. Neither the on-campus group nor alumni dispute the finding that former members introduced hazing to Cayuga’s Waiters.

S for opinion

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | On Cayuga’s Waiters

To the Editor:

Last month, I attended the memorial service  for a Cornell classmate of mine, Robert Cohen, of the Class  of 1960. Bob and I met on my first day at Cornell, in September of 1956; and although not close friends, we remained good friends over the next 56 Years, until his death last December. Among other things, and perhaps one of the most notable aspects of Bob’s life was his lifelong membership in Cayuga’s Waiters. In that capacity, Bob  attended every Cornell reunion, not only those of our class, over the past many years. He and his colleagues provided enormous pleasure and a welcome infusion of  Cornell spirit at those events.

lte 2 5-1

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | On credulity and union politics: A response from a CGSU Officer on letter from Prof. Jacobson, law

To the Editor:

The response from Prof. William Jacobson, law, to a letter to the editor that criticizes David Collum, the Betty R. Miller Professor and Chair of the Chemistry Department, states at its outset that the letter to the editor “appears to be payback” for Prof. Collum’s anti-union views. Prof. Jacobson seems to have based this accusation solely on the fact that the writers are supporters of Cornell Graduate Students United. This union retaliation claim has since been picked up by right-wing media outlets with enthusiasm, and the graduate students are now subjects of online abuse. I write to point out two related issues. One, the claim of “payback” for Prof. Collum’s views on unions is unsubstantiated.

lte 5-1

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Finding Common Ground: A Republican and a Democrat on The Sun’s comment section

To the Editor:

Last week created a strange moment of unity — a pizza party among several deeply divided groups on campus as we observed Mitch McBride’s ’17 hearing. This was the first opportunity recently for any number of conversations that have not been happening: we have observed Cornell’s campus fracturing along sharper lines this past year. We’d like to address how this has been particularly visible in, and amplified by, trolling and hate speech in the Cornell Daily Sun’s comments section. Although primarily driven by alt-right ideology, the ad hominem, vituperative and intellectually void rhetoric has not been limited to any one group within the Cornell Daily Sun commentariat. These comments are extreme enough to expose the contradiction within free speech: that speech of this sort can itself have a chilling effect on speech.

lte 4-25

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Prof. David Collum, Chemistry, is owed an apology and a retraction

To the Editor:

On April 20, 2017, The Cornell Daily Sun published a lengthy letter to the editor from seven graduate students: Kevin Hines, Robert Escriva, Ethan Susca, Mel White, Rose Agger, Kolbeinn Karlsson and Jane Glaubman. The letter impugned the integrity of Cornell world-renowned Prof. David B. Collum, chemistry in the most serious ways, accusing him of being a rape apologist, misogynistic and unfit for the position of department chair. Several of the letter writers were graduate student union supporters active in the union vote drive. Prof. Collum has been widely criticized by union supporters for opposing the union drive. The letter appears to be payback.

Letter to the Editor: On Weill Medical College in Qatar

To the Editor:
On March 17, President Rawlings responded to “Promoting Fair and Humane Labor Practices in Qatar,” a Student Assembly resolution calling on Cornell University to increase transparency about its presence in Qatar. Regrettably, he dismissed our calls to publish the dates of university meetings with Qatar Foundation officials and commit Cornell to combatting Qatar’s kafala system. As Martha Pollack assumes her role as Cornell’s president, we urge her to heed these demands and take a stronger stance than her predecessors on this critical issue. Perhaps most regrettably, Rawlings dismissed calls for unionization at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar by noting that unions are illegal in Qatar. In light of President Rawlings’ declaration that WCM-Q cannot recognize unions because of their illegality, we reaffirm workers’ fundamental right to a union as outlined in ILO Convention 87.

lte ilr 4-20

Letter to the Editor: ILR faculty object to Cornell’s coercive conduct prior to CGSU election

To the editor:

As faculty members in the Cornell University ILR School, we are deeply concerned about the conduct of the Cornell administration on March 26, the eve of the Cornell Graduate Students United election and on March 27, the first day of voting in the election. On both days, Cornell’s Senior Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Barbara Knuth sent emails to thousands of Cornell graduate students with messages that interfered with graduate employees’ ability to freely exercise their rights to choose whether to be represented by the CGSU. In raising our concerns about Dean Knuth’s conduct, we draw on our expertise and experience in the field of labor law, labor relations and labor rights. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it is unlawful for an employer to make statements that would have the tendency to “interfere with, restrain or coerce” employees in exercising their rights to choose whether to unionize.  Unlawful coercive statements by employer representatives include explicit or implicit threats that the employer may cut back on jobs if employees vote for a union.

lte 4-20

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | On a professor’s misconduct

To the Editor:

The recent union drive at Cornell, like those at other campuses across the country, has given a voice to the issues that graduate students face. One of the most pressing issues on which grads have organized  is sexual harassment. This issue hits close to home at Cornell, which has more active Title IX investigations than any other university in the nation. For graduate students, facts like this are especially worrisome. Per a 2015 study by the Association of American Universities, grad students were four times more likely to be sexually harassed by a professor than undergrads.

lte 4-19

Letter to the Editor: Former judicial codes counselor speaks out in support of McBride

To the Editor:

I write in response to the recent article detailing charges brought against Mitch McBride ’17 under the Campus Code of Conduct for sharing allegedly confidential materials from the Admissions and Financial Aid Working Group. These charges are both ill-advised and unwarranted. The function of a student representative to a university committee or task force is often to bring student viewpoints to the attention of university decision-makers regarding important policy and programmatic initiatives and to relay information to and from constituents. While students serve at the pleasure of the administration in an effort to make university decision-making more participatory, transparent and democratic, student representatives are not employed by the university, nor do they tacitly agree, by virtue of their participation, to act at the behest of the university’s administration rather than in the best interest of the constituents they have been elected or appointed to represent. To put a “gag order” on student representatives to not share information or solicit feedback about proposals that are under administrative review — under threat of disciplinary action pursuant to the Campus Code of Conduct — would seriously undermine the role and effectiveness of students serving in these capacities.