We write to express our dismay at the poor judgment demonstrated in the hosting and funding of Ann Coulter’s visit to campus. We do not deny Ann Coulter’s right to express her opinions, nor a student organization’s right to invite whomever they choose, but we are very puzzled by why the event warranted the presence of the University’s chief academic officer. We find it odd that while Provost Kotlikoff has repeatedly asked that the faculty help lower the temperature of the campus climate, he chose to support Ann Coulter, a known provocateur, in an action which has in fact helped to create a tenser, less safe and more discriminatory climate on campus. Hosting a speaker whose presence purportedly warranted such heavy policing illustrates questionable judgment and indicates a lack of true commitment to creating a community of belonging. In The Cornell Daily Sun, Provost Kotlikoff said he supported Coulter’s visit because “there could be few more powerful demonstrations of Cornell’s commitment to free expression than to have Ms. Coulter return to campus and present her views.” In this same statement he demurs from outright support of Coulter’s many controversial opinions and denies that Coulter’s opinions are of import to students but suggests instead that her appearance on campus is of symbolic value. Symbolic of what? Such symbolic value comes at no small price: Coulter’s bureau says that her fee ranges from $20,000 to $50,000 per event. To this price we would also add the additional cost of policing and travel and housing. Does this statement indicate that the Office of the Provost ceded decision making power to outside groups in the selection of the speaker? Or would the provost, a scientist, have sponsored a speaker that peddles conspiracy theories about his colleagues and profession or who is adamantly opposed to vaccinations? Would police have arrested the scientists who verbally challenged such absurdities? At a moment when students, faculty and staff are deeply divided about US foreign policy, why did the chief academic officer of the University, Provost Kotlikoff, think it appropriate to bring a speaker who has publicly stated that “We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express.” At a moment when many people are struggling with the ramifications of pervasive violence, why would Provost Kotlikoff think it useful to bring a speaker who famously said that “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.” At a university that proudly draws its students, staff and faculty from around the world, why would President Kotlikoff think it appropriate to offer a platform to a speaker who complains regularly that immigrants to the US are from “the most backward, dysfunctional cultures,” who suggests that migrants should be shot, and at the recent Cornell event asked, “Why does every sad sack in the world have to come to this country?” At a moment when we are encouraging civic engagement in the 2024 elections, why would Provost Kotlikoff host someone who thinks women should be denied the right to vote and that “overweight girls” should be barred entry into the country?
