In an email to the community this afternoon, President Kotlikoff flexed one of Cornell’s newly developed muscles for the first time. That muscle is a freshly defined response to disruptive protest on campus. Kotlikoff was right to use it today, but Cornell has to tread lightly — institutional neutrality is difficult in practice.
After a full semester and ensuing summer of murky waters over the role of expressive activity on campus, in August, new president Michael Kotlikoff, outlined how the administration would deal with disruptive protests on campus. And today he executed on that plan.
The new policy, sent out on Aug. 26th, was a response to the Interim Expressive Activity Policy, a slipshod bandage placed over a gaping wound left in the community from unrest over the Israel-Hamas war. The interim policy had missed the mark, outlawing candlelight vigils, heavily restricting amplified sound and overly confining the physical space of protest. The policy drew ire from the Cornell community, the Editorial Board I sit on included.
As one of his first presidential actions this year, Kotlikoff looked to balance a “long held and deep commitment to supporting free expression” with an acknowledgment that free speech is not unlimited. To preserve this balance, the administration would use a three-tiered system of academic sanctions when responding to peaceful, noncomplying protests. The system begins with the mildest of punishments: a warning. Cornell would, however, invoke a “public safety response” when dealing with violent disruption.
Today, Kotlikoff tested out both the new policy about free expression and institutional neutrality after a group of pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted the career fair last week. The disruption caused recruiters to pack up and leave the students they had shown up to recruit. Kotlikoff prompted “immediate suspension or employment sanctions up to and including dismissal,” even threatening legal action against those who participated in criminal activity. Administration seemingly puts this recent protest into the second bucket outlined in the Aug. 26th message: “acts of violence, extended occupation of buildings, or destruction of property.”
Kotlikoff’s decision to enforce the new guidelines was the right move. Protestors don’t have the right to interrupt students just looking for a job. The affected students had the right to use the recruiting resources that they paid for in their expensive tuition. When the protestors caused so much disruption that companies had to pack up and leave the Statler, they went too far. Their rights to protest trampled on students’ rights to further their careers. Knowing how connected the leadership of the Coalition for Mutual Liberation is to campus issues, they knew what the consequences of their protest would be.
This afternoon, Momodou Taal, one of those in associated with CML, tweeted: “there is targeted campaign of intimidation and harassment against me from Cornell’s administration and police” in the wake of his suspension by Cornell’s administration. Momodou, who had been suspended before, knew what would happen if he violated the University’s new policy. He tested the limits he knew were in place and is now facing the consequences. The school, however, should not move to have Taal deported — that is not their place. Momodou’s cause is just, but his methods were flawed.
At a private school, this policy is a fair response to disruptive protests on campus — the freedom to protest isn’t unlimited. When protestors substantially interrupt our ability to learn, their protest warrants the consequences that Kotlikoff outlined at the beginning of the school year. Some students pay almost $100,000 a year to study here; our time in the classroom is precious, and excessive disruption can steal that time away.
The lynchpin of Cornell’s new policy, though, is its enforcement. A content-neutral system of consequences for overly disruptive protest is fully warranted. But that’s what it has to be, content-neutral. In one of his first major changes from former president Martha Pollack, President Kotlikoff expressed his intent to practice institutional neutrality, where the University won’t take any positions on political issues. The enactment of that institutional neutrality needs to be delicately implemented.
What we, as students, should watch closely as the school year rolls on, is if our institution is truly neutral. The policy regarding discipline for disruptive action isn’t inherently just or unjust — its enforcement is. Will the University hold all protests to this new standard, or will they selectively enforce their new rules? I hope Cornell uses their newly professed institutional neutrality to treat all students equally, and to draw lines of consequence based on disruption, not content.
Today, Cornell correctly used their newly developed muscle of enforcement. But tomorrow, Cornell needs to tread carefully. They’ve set an aggressive precedent, and neutrality is easier said than done.
The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: [email protected].