Editor’s Note: This piece represents the fourth in a four part series on the disciplinary process employed by Cornell’s administration against Momodou Taal, written by his faculty support. It has been slightly edited by The Sun for clarity, grammar and style, but, in the interest of transparency, otherwise preserved in its complete form. To read the first part, click here.
On the morning of Sept. 23, Taal received a summons to a disciplinary meeting scheduled for noon that day, where he was accompanied by Prof. Fleming and a union representative. At that meeting Taal was presented with the formal complaint outlining three allegations relating to the Sept. 18 protest at Statler Hotel and the Carrier Ballroom: “fail[ure] to comply with the lawful directives of university officials”; “unauthorized use of university property by entering the Stater Hotel immediately behind individuals who had used forced [sic] to gain entry”; having “intentionally led or repeated chants that were unreasonably loud resulting in the significant disruption of university activities.” The written, formal complaint concluded by informing Taal that he was “temporarily suspended, effective immediately” and “withdrawn from all University privileges and services,” both of which remain “in effect until you receive further notice” from Cornell.
Taal has acknowledged that he spoke at a protest outside the Statler Hotel which took place before the events described. However, Taal disputes most of the alleged conduct in the complaint. Importantly, the complaint does not even claim that Taal himself used force to gain entry into the building, that he acted in a violent or threatening way, or that he pushed police officers aside. The allegation that he entered “immediately behind” individuals who are alleged to have done so is vague and does not seem to be supported by video footage that has been widely circulated by media outlets. In any case, Taal has had no opportunity to see evidence supporting the allegations against him, much less the opportunity to present counter evidence or call witnesses who might corroborate his claims.
The sole purpose of the disciplinary meeting was to answer questions about the temporary suspension and its consequences. It also took place despite the repeated protests from the union representative that — per the MOA between the graduate student union and Cornell — disciplinary measures are to be addressed at the bargaining table. Taal was informed that he could leave the meeting at any time but the outcome would be the same; with the formal complaint being rendered, the student was already suspended.
In response to his repeated requests for evidence, Taal was informed that evidence will be part of a full investigation, which is first triggered with the formal complaint and the temporary suspension with all its consequences. In this case that clearly included de-enrollment, revocation of his visa and the subsequent need to leave the country within 48 hours. Taal was informed that the temporary suspension can be appealed but an appeal does not pause the suspension or its punishments. No timeline was given for the investigation. In a letter dated the following day, Sept. 24, Taal was reminded: “as we discussed once you are administratively withdrawn from the fall 2024 term, your visa status will change.…[U]pon termination of F-1 status, it is advisable to depart the US as soon as possible so as to minimize the time you are out of status within the US.”
Taal filed an appeal of his Temporary Suspension, but per OSCCS procedures the appeal had to be addressed to the complainant itself, in the form of Vice President for Student and Campus Life Ryan Lombardi (who has since rejected the appeal) and Provost Siliciano (with whom it sits at present). The complainant therefore serves as both judge and jury.
In the above descriptions of the three complaints and resulting meetings, a few things stand out. The value of a temporary suspension — in the eyes of the administration — is that neither due process nor evidence, in fact, is required. In this respect, a temporary suspension has an advantage over a full investigation: allegations alone suffice. And because of this, there really is little motivation for the administration to proceed with a full investigation in a timely manner — or at all. This is why temporary suspensions should be reserved for truly exceptional cases involving genuine threats to the University community.
Next, even if one were to leave aside for a moment the question of evidence and due process — a very big “even if”— the reality remains that the punitive action taken is grossly out of proportion to the alleged offenses. In each of the three referrals Taal has received, we must remember that he is ultimately charged with participating in a protest. At no point has he ever been charged with violence or with harming the health and safety of another member of the Cornell community. While protests may on occasion be loud or disruptive, they do not meet the high bar of endangering the Cornell community.
The characterization of Taal as a multiple offender deserving of the harshest possible punishment is typical of the pseudo-legal language that administrators and the OSCCS have used to talk about the adjudication of alleged conduct code violations. The administration is treating temporary suspensions as if they were convictions, rather than temporary measures intended [in the text of the code] to protect the community until an investigation is completed. Because speech need only be deemed “loud” or potentially “frightening” to expose a student to the harshest disciplinary penalties, the speech of the student — and of other activists participating in the same protests — is chilled. This in turn raises the prospect of viewpoint discrimination, which is strictly prohibited by the First Amendment and cannot be justified through the “time, place, and manner” restrictions promoted as reasonable by the current administration. We call on Cornell to do better, and to recognize the right of every member of the Cornell community to due process.
Paul Fleming is a professor of Comparative Literature and German Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. He served as Momodou Taal’s faculty advisor for his third complaint. He can be reached at [email protected]
Tracy McNulty is a professor of Comparative Literature and Romance Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. She served as Momodou Taal’s faculty advisor for his first complaint. She can be reached at [email protected]
Mostafa Minawi is a professor of History in the College of Arts and Sciences. He served as Momodou Taal’s faculty advisor for his second complaint.. He can be reached at [email protected]