Op-Ed
Skorton on Race, Intellectual Diversity and the Review
Email: 
Share: 
From David
.png "From David")
My column today was motivated by a current controversy on our campus and by the larger issues it represents. Articles in the Cornell Review’s orientation issue have once again put issues of civility, diversity, and free speech squarely before our campus community and the greater Cornell family. The views as expressed in the Review articles — one focused on minority students and one satirically linking Muslims to terrorism — were clearly at odds with the values of our university.
The current controversy raises three broad issues:
1. How should we as a campus respond to writings and other forms of speech that target certain groups within our campus community in ways that many find offensive?
2. How can we foster a robust discussion and civil debate of contentious issues in ways that are respectful of political and intellectual diversity?
3. When it comes to hurtful or hateful speech, is there a certain line that we as a university won’t let people cross?
The present polarization of students at Cornell and of citizens throughout our country demands a dispassionate exploration of this matter.
Portraying classes of individuals as caricatures advances nothing. This serves no useful function within our campus community, is hurtful to those targeted, and is antithetical to the values our university has championed for nearly 150 years.
The antidote to offensive speech, however, is more speech, not less speech. Many on our campus and beyond have found the Review articles objectionable and have responded forcefully by exercising their own free-speech rights through picketing, a Student Assembly resolution criticizing the Review for causing “alienation and intimidation,” and other means. I encourage all who take umbrage with points of view expressed on campus or in media distributed on our campus to come forward to communicate their own views in ways that inform and enlarge the perspective of the wider community.
On the second issue, intellectual and political diversity, the need for rational, civil and informed debate is also critical, especially in this Presidential election year. On the national level, critics like David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom have, for several years, been advocating for an “Academic Bill of Rights” that would require ideological balance on university faculties. A range of intellectual and political perspectives is clearly desirable. But, as I wrote in my column of October 17, 2006, actual mandates imposed externally or administratively would be clumsy, meddlesome, intrusive, and ineffective. Rather, I believe we must recommit ourselves as a university to welcoming reasoned inquiry and debate across the ideological spectrum.
The current economic crisis, health care, climate change, access to quality education, Social Security, immigration, national security, and inequality of opportunity in the U.S. and abroad are among the topics that deserve our attention in this election year and beyond. The session in Bailey Hall last Friday evening focused on some of these topics and set a positive tone for dialogue and data-driven debate, which I hope we can carry forward.
Throughout the academic year, we will be looking to bring additional thought leaders to campus in order to present opposing views on topics of deep national and international concern and then engage the campus community in reasoned discussion and debate. We will publicize these forums widely, and I hope that many students, faculty and staff members will take advantage of them to expand their perspectives and develop a more nuanced understanding of the challenges facing our society and the larger world
We must adhere to the principle that all perspectives and their proponents are welcome on our great university campuses. No speaker should be kept from our lecterns unless the immediate consequence of a speech would be a violent act or other lawless behavior. And all discourse should be civil and non-threatening.
I hope you will join me in resisting attempts to limit campus discussion, even when we abhor the message being delivered, and in promoting civil and rational debate as an opportunity to learn together and develop a more nuanced understanding of the issues and the perspectives of those who bring them forth.
But, even in the realm of free speech, there is a line that we cannot let people cross. Speech that is abusive, vulgar, derisive, or provocative but does not create an imminent danger of violence is generally protected. On the other hand, “fighting words”—defined by the courts as words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace—have been held to exceed the bounds of protected speech. All of us have many opportunities and many ways to challenge actions and words that are antithetical to this community that we all call home. I hope that you will join me in condemning any message that hurts and divides.
David J. Skorton is president of Cornell University. Contact him at david.skorton@cornell.edu. From David appears monthly.
Great Perspective from President Skorton
I really appreciate the well reasoned perspective presented by President Skorton. It stands in stark contrast to other institutions that have stifled offensive viewpoints with censorship. It is clear from President Skorton's article that several views presented in the Review were unacceptable, but that responses through picketing, a student resolution, and other means were appropriate to address the poor judgment of the few people involved in expressing those offensive comments. It's encouraging to hear discussion that encourages development of a healthy campus community environment while not avoiding unpleasant issues by attempting to force them underground. Thank you President Skorton for such a well worded and thought provoking article.
Pres. Skornton on Free speech at Cornell
Pres. Skornton's message is on target intellectually and so in keeping with the great tradition of Cornell. His advice draws the line exactly where it should.
Robert Brooks, GR 61 and GR 65
PRESIDENT SKORTON'S COLUMN
With all due respect to President Skorton, there is a difference between the legal standard for criminal or civil prosecution -- "fighting words," which is a very high standard, and the standard for what I should permit in my home (or, as he refers to it, a place we all think of as home). Cornell should not permit "hate speech" on campus -- it is hurtful to students and serves no useful purpose. It is the furthest thing from intellectual discourse. While there are many examples of "hate speech," the most frequent example I see on campuses on a regular basis is that of Muslims and Muslim groups attacking everything from Isreal, to Jews, to history, to the United States (this type of speech is by no means limited to campuses, but seems to find a more hospitable reception there than other places). Intelligent and well informed criticism of a country or group is important and should be fostered. The ravings of lunatics like the President of Iran and the Muslim students/student groups who have adopted his theories has no place on any campus and certainly no place at Cornell. We should have the courage to draw the line short of "fighting words" and say we are an educational institution and there is nothing educational about the ravings of lunatics -- particularly lunatics who openly applaud the past mass murder of thousands of Americans (some of whom were Cornellians) and openly advocate the future mass murder of the majority of Cornellians simply because these Cornellians are not Muslim fundamentalists. Do we really believe that a Cornell education should include the opportunity to learn the virtue of committing suicide for the sole purpose of killing other innocent people? I hope Cornell will take a stand that we do not provide a forum for people whose sole purpose in life seems to be to kill innocent people.
Class of 1966
With all due respect to you, sir
Mr. Schnapp,
Your opening sentence includes the suggestion Cornell should not permit "hate speech" because "it is hurtful to students and serves no useful purpose." I take issue with both parts of that statement. By "hurtful" I have to assume you mean it will harm them in some objective way. I cannot imagine what that might be. Can I imagine some (maybe even most) students could be offended by a particular opinion. Of course I can. But, mature adults can be offended without being harmed. Too often these days (particularly on college campuses!) this is the criterion for what is disallowed - it offends someone. I say we need to grow up. We need to take responsibility for our own thoughts, emotions and actions. Instead of attempting to silence those who make us uncomfortable we should engage them. I also suggest that being exposed to a true diversity of opinion is what contributes to a real education. Even if you care to think of it in only this narrow context - exposure to an opinion you may end up finding offensive at least exposes you to the reality that an individual or group hold such an opinion and provides an opportunity (which would otherwise not exist) for you to counter that opinion. Hardly of no use, then.
I commend President Skorton on an intellectually sound and morally just opinion on the subject. I am proud my child is a student at an institution whose leader holds such views. It gives me great hope that others share these values and may nurture them in our future leaders.
Excellent column, very well
Excellent column, very well written. I am so glad that President Skorton can see beyond the offensive words and the calls for censorship. That cannot exist in a University like ours that is looking for innovation, new ideas, for leadership. We need to "stand out and not to blend in". Even offensive speech has value. I do not know what was said and probably would not agree with it, but I am glad to live in a Country and belong to a School where people are free to express it. Thank you for your stand and for your principles. They are getting harder and harder to find in other places.
Alumnus '93