After receiving extensive criticism from faculty and students, the University lessened the Interim Expressive Activity Policy restrictions, according to an email sent to the Cornell community on Monday by President Martha Pollack and Provost Michael Kotlikoff.
Reductions to regulations impact event registration, the use of open flames and postering. The University also pledged to determine the final policy through a consultative process with faculty, students and staff.
February and March are considered a period of public comment before the policies are formally taken to the Executive Policy Review Group which can approve the final expressive activity policy, according to Prof. Eve De Rosa, psychology, in a faculty forum on Feb. 28.
The original interim policy, which was issued on Jan. 24, restricted student protest on campus through limitations on expressive activities including guidelines on the use of amplified sound and the number of people at outdoor demonstrations.
The University first referred students for disciplinary action under the interim policy at the Coalition for Mutual Liberation “Walk Out To a Die In” divestment protest held on Feb. 8.
There have been two instances since where the University referred student protestors for disciplinary action, both of which impacted pro-Palestine protestors.
The Monday statement clarified that the use of the word “expected” for registering events was replaced with stating that the University “strongly encourages prior registration of protest activities, [but] registration is not required,” conceding that the prior wording was “vague.”
“By choosing to register [events], organizers enable the University to better support protest activity, address health and safety concerns and reduce the potential for unintended conflict with other scheduled activities,” the statement reads.
The updated policy opened opportunities for open flames at events, allowing for candles under six inches so as not “to prevent candlelight vigils.” The previous policy stipulated that “candles, lamps and other open flame sources” were not permitted but could be included on a “case-by-case basis after review by health and safety personnel.”
The updated policy also adds flexibility to postering guidelines, stating that prior written permission is not directly required for posters, signs, flyers and banners in designated University-approved locations. However, the statement notes that “posters, signs, flyers and banners in non-designated spaces — regardless of content — may be removed by facility managers.”
Despite calls to revise the requirement that posters are dated and have the name of the sponsoring organization, the statement noted that this aspect of the policy will not be modified at this time.
“This requirement is a best practice, consistent with the policies of many of our peers. It serves both to ensure that posters are placed only by members of our community and to enable discourse,” the statement reads.
The Student Assembly, Faculty Senate and University Assembly overwhelmingly condemned the policy’s free speech implications and a lack of transparency by administration before the policy’s enactment.
In a Feb. 22 meeting, the S.A. unanimously passed Resolution 58, which called for the University to suspend the interim policy until a formal consultation process is established.
Members of both the S.A. and the Faculty Senate criticized the administration’s lack of collaboration with the shared governance system to determine the interim policy’s details.
Prof. Risa Lieberwitz, industrial and labor relations, said that the University failed to solicit senator’s perspectives prior to passing the resolution in a Feb. 14 Faculty Senate meeting.
“[There is a] need for full Faculty Senate deliberations, including considering and voting on any amendments to this new policy,” Lieberwitz said. “And [the] final result is that we actually do that — we really take the time and do the sort of evaluation, consideration, amendments and real concern for addressing what is not a part of educational policy at all.”
The Cornell community expressed opposition to the interim policy at a Feb. 6 University Assembly meeting.
The Monday announcement noted appreciation of the UA’s work soliciting opinions from the Cornell community and all of the “thoughtful input received from faculty, staff and students” regarding the policy.
According to the email, the original intent of the interim policy was not to restrict freedom of expression and limit non-disruptive protests. The email also stated that the policy primarily consolidates “pre-existing policies in one place.”
The email defends the University’s changes to the policy as reflective of Cornell’s “long tradition of and deep commitment to free and open expression.”
However, despite the University’s expressed commitment to allowing students to freely express themselves, the statement reminds that the “free expression of one person cannot trample on that of another.”
The email said that threats and harassment to any students are “not protected by free expression rights and are never acceptable.” The statement expressed concern over the fact that there have recently been “several incidents in which community members have experienced harassment that appears to be motivated by bigotry, in one case targeting a group of Muslim students, and in another a Jewish student,” which are all currently under investigation.
The University acknowledged that there is still more work to do to create a finalized version of the policy and announced the adoption of a group of community members to help with the creation of a polished version of the free expression policy.
“We will convene a group of faculty, students and staff members to refine and propose a finalized version of an expressive activity policy that achieves these goals,” the statement reads. “With the benefit of this committee’s work, we will advance a version through the policy review process and then present a final policy to the University Assembly in Fall [2024].”