Kotlikoff has, supposedly, decided to chart his course as our president guided by so-called “institutional neutrality,” a decision he’s not alone in, as Ivy League university leaders are being subjected to increasing scrutiny by Congress as they try to have a finger in every pie.
Elite universities, it seems, have come to a consensus: When they adopt political stances, they restrict free speech and academic debate by creating a status quo that is difficult for students and faculty to oppose. To opt in to institutional neutrality is to opt out of the tough calls, protecting themselves from criticism by leaving little to criticize.
But a Cornell with millions tied up in the profits of weapons manufacturing and an endowment dependent on critical donors is anything but neutral. Perhaps I’d respect Kotlikoff’s stance if he was a bit more frank — he is not, and never will be, neutral. He has always been a corporatist.
This would all be well and good — noble, even — if Cornell’s administration actually intended to adhere to this so-called neutrality. But Kotlikoff’s intent is much more insidious: our administration is not embracing neutrality, they’re exploiting it.
Institutional neutrality implies that our institution is neutral — it’s in the name. The inherent premise is for students and faculty to have the freedom to express their beliefs without fear of opposing their institution.
Our administration’s actions this past year have decidedly not been neutral — they’ve been anything but. It’s almost a mockery of the very concept to slap the title of ‘neutral’ onto the patched up suspension of a student protestor. Denying due process to Momodou Taal wasn’t about maintaining order. It was a display for all student protesters who dare challenge the aforementioned status quo: if you speak out, no one can help you.
I suppose, however, that a president willing to violate the First Amendment has no qualms about the Fourteenth.
Of course, while Cornell is a private university and Kotlikoff may not be legally bound by constitutional obligations, elite universities have long positioned themselves as bastions of free expression. Cornell is particularly guilty of this: Under President Pollack, the University championed free speech, framing it as the bedrock of academic freedom and disavowing efforts to suppress it. Kotlikoff’s actions may escape constitutional scrutiny, but they do not escape Code of Conduct obligations.
To be sure, Cornell knew this. Just like they understood that disciplining students for peaceful protests would violate our Code of Conduct, let alone suspending them without granting them the due process that Code affords. And so the Interim Expressive Activity Policy was born — a tool designed to stamp out dissent that has faced widespread criticism from students, faculty and free speech advocates alike.
Pollack, and now Kotlikoff, have treated this policy as an unofficial amendment to the code of conduct, yet failed to follow the proper procedures to amend it. According to Cornell’s own rules, changes to the code must be publicly posted, with an invitation for community feedback and formal adoption by the President, followed by a vote of the Board of Trustees. By bypassing these procedures, Cornell hasn’t just disregarded constitutional principles — they’ve violated the promises they’ve made to their own students.
Kotlikoff has chosen to continue this legacy, wielding the Interim Expressive Activity Policy and all of its Orwellian underpinnings to suspend a student for violating ‘interim’ policies meant to permanently stifle students speaking out. Our administration has positioned itself as the carte blanche hand of justice: students’ judge, jury and executioner. Neutrality, as Kotlikoff envisions it, seems to mean suppressing dissent. His proposed definition reaches beyond the bounds of the institution it’s supposedly confined to, muzzling those who don’t bend the knee.
If Kotlikoff truly believed in the neutrality he’s espousing, he wouldn’t cherry-pick when to apply it. Instead, Cornell’s leadership has shown a willingness to take sides — always the side of the donors, trustees and corporate interests they aim to mollify.
This is not neutrality. It’s an agenda wrapped in a thin veneer of impartiality.
Kotlikoff’s renewed commitment to squashing student protests isn’t surprising. It comes on the heels of donations to Columbia dropping by nearly 30 percent, in line with prominent Columbia alumni withdrawing their own financial generosity to their alma mater due to the student protests. Cornell is keenly aware that honoring their own commitment to free speech may cost our University certain donors’ financial commitments. But this acquiescence begs the question: How long before Cornell is simply subject to the highest bid?
Our administration knows that by invoking neutrality, they can protect Cornell’s bottom line while masquerading as principled. Worse, this public relations stunt will be their only overture to us — Cornell administration abandoned the pretense of a good faith relationship with its students and faculty when they began blatantly ignoring its Faculty Senate and Student Assembly.
If this is neutrality, then neutrality itself has become a weapon used to suppress the very free expression it claims to protect.
Sophia Arnold is a third year student in the Brooks School of Public Policy. Her fortnightly column Under Scrutiny focuses broadly on political and campus issues. She can be reached at [email protected].
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].