There is a temptation to reshape institutions based on the needs of the moment. FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court to pass his New Deal legislation. Truman, during wartime, issued an executive order to seize steel mills with the short-term goal of preventing a union strike, which was later ruled unconstitutional. While at the time changing institutions may seem like the best course of action, doing so risks undermining the enduring safeguards they provide.
Vice President Kamala Harris recently advocated reshaping institutional norms during her campaign. She called for the elimination of the Senate filibuster, a rule that has historically required a 60-vote threshold to pass most legislation. I believe Harris’s stance had good intentions — motivated by a desire to protect women’s reproductive freedoms. The filibuster served as an obstacle to passing legislation that would codify protections for reproductive rights at the federal level after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. However, after a dominating Republican performance in last week’s election — which resulted in their control of the Presidency, House and Senate — I think one thing is clear (and should have been all along): Kamala Harris jumped the gun.
The filibuster, the Democratic enemy for the past four years, will now serve as the only protective mechanism preventing the Republican Party from enacting a free reign of whatever legislation they want. In a few days’ time, the filibuster went from being a block against legalizing abortion federally to the only institutional safeguard protecting against a nationwide ban on it.
Thus, I hope Harris’s suggestion serves as an important lesson: when political climates fluctuate, the design and purpose of our institutions should not. By no means am I advocating against change. Institutions like the filibuster, however, were built not to serve a single moment but rather to protect an entire system — in this case, preventing a simple majority from unilaterally imposing its will on the minority and halting constant fluctuations in the law each time there is a small shift in Senate power.
This is not only a lesson for the federal government but one I believe we should apply to every institution. Look on our campus: Cornell has made a shift away from longstanding established policies to solve shorter-term issues — and it has proved costly. For years, Cornell’s framework — including the Campus Code of Conduct, the Student Assembly Postering Policy, Cornell Student Code of Conduct and various facility-specific guidelines — guided speech and assembly, including “time, place, and manner” restrictions to maintain campus order without stifling speech. However, after the campus protests concerning the Israel-Gaza War began, Cornell responded in January 2024 by concentrating and expanding upon these policies into one policy, the Interim Expressive Activity Policy. The intent was to create a unified policy addressing the growing complexities of campus expression.
The new Interim Expressive Activity, however, was hastily implemented while still seeking feedback from faculty and students, creating campus confusion. For example, the interim policy stated that event registration was “expected” without clarifying whether registration was mandatory or punishable if not registered. Additionally, the interim policy created a blanket prohibition on open flames and inadvertently restricted candlelight vigils, a valued form of peaceful assembly on campus. Recognizing these issues, Cornell made updates in March, fixing some of the issues the campus body voiced, however there are still significant elements of the Interim Expressive Activity that students still take issue with. While Cornell re-aligned portions of the policy with their tradition of supporting open expression, the lesson remains: we should carefully consider institutional changes that respect longs tanding principles and values.
The rush to consolidate policies under the January interim measure mirrors Kamala Harris’s call to eliminate the Senate filibuster — both decisions aimed to address urgent concerns but risked undermining foundational principles. Before making these decisions, we need to step back and consider what to do when our institutions’ principles meet current pressures—instead of bending them in the moment, let’s uphold them for the future.
Seth Berman is a third-year student in the College of Arts & Sciences. His column, The Other Side, takes on controversial issues both on the Cornell campus and in broader societal contexts, offering a unique perspective on debates that challenge conventional thinking. He 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].