The Faculty Senate discussed a report detailing proposed changes to Cornell’s expressive activity policies and a resolution condemning Joel Malina, vice president for University relations, for “violations of academic freedom” during its meeting on Wednesday.
Colleen L. Barry, dean of the Brooks School of Public Policy, shared a draft report from the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity that evaluates and recommends changes to Cornell’s existing expressive activity policies. Barry’s presentation, which prompted concerns related to faculty academic freedom, was particularly relevant in the context of the Faculty Senate’s continued discussion of Malina’s statement during a Sept. 30 meeting with Jewish parents that faculty members’ “in-class activities will be scrutinized.”
The CCEA’s draft report was released to the Cornell community on Oct. 30 for open comment, and the committee is currently seeking input from Cornell’s shared governance bodies. The proposed policy recommends measures for expressive activity, noting time, place and manner restrictions; disciplinary measures for students, faculty and staff; and potential consideration of enacting institutional neutrality or restraint.
Prof. Richard Bensel, government, criticized the report’s particular focus on student protests, explaining the importance of protecting faculty academic freedom in light of recent administrative actions.
Bensel specifically cited Malina’s comments and a recent incident where Interim Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff “stated that he was ‘extremely disappointed’ by the decision of a curriculum committee to approve a course because he did not like the content.”
“Any set of regulations on expressive activity must include procedures under which high officials of the central administration are constrained if they attempt to overhaul faculty in and out of the classroom,” Bensel said.
Given that the CCEA was formed by current University leadership, Bensel also questioned the legitimacy of the CCEA as a “defender of academic freedom,” suggesting that “it would perhaps be best to restart this process with a more democratically elected committee.”
Prof. Risa Lieberwitz, industrial and labor relations; Prof. Begüm Adalet, government; and Knight Institute senior lecturer Darlene Evans echoed support for the call for a democratically elected committee.
Prof. Charlie Green, literature, expressed staunch opposition to the policy, stating, “I don’t see why the expressive policy exists other than to threaten and punish political groups on campus. … I don’t think that the policy represents what protest is about and does not reflect what universities are.”
Other faculty members raised concerns about the policy’s broad definition of “disruption,” suggesting that language that references safety and disruption could be interpreted in a manner that would place significant constraints on expressive activity.
Proponents of the policy expressed appreciation for the committee’s recommendation for a more narrow use of temporary suspension as a disciplinary action and strong language related to academic freedom.
Later in the meeting, discussion of a resolution introduced at the Oct. 9 Faculty Senate meeting condemning Malina for his comment that professors’ “in class activities would be scrutinized” brought further focus on the academic freedom granted to Cornell faculty.
Malina later clarified his remarks in a letter to the editor, stating that he intended to reference a University policy statement. The discussed resolution, which has yet to be voted on, specifically asked for Malina to issue a public apology and for a commitment from the Cornell administration to uphold academic freedom without surveillance of faculty speech.
Research associate William Katt suggested that The Sun’s report of Malina’s comments may have been taken out of context, a statement that was reiterated by Prof. Ruth Collins, molecular medicine, and Prof. Yuval Grossman, physics.
Collins further expressed concerns that the resolution would contribute to the vilification of academic administrators and would diminish public support — namely scientific funding — by adding to the “public perception of faculty as being not serious, overly censorious.” Grossman also referenced public perception, encouraging consideration of how passing such a resolution would reflect back on the Senate.
Proponents of the resolution, notably Prof. Alex Nading, anthropology, and Evans emphasized the resolution’s aim in ensuring the protection of academic freedom, which Evans described as “absolutely necessary for education to take place.”
Nading said that Malina’s comments suggest that the institution does not trust faculty, and similar administrative statements “ratify the worst alarmism that has been stoked almost completely about political bias in academia — the assertion that universities are systematically indoctrinating students.”
Nading also emphasized that “it’s important for leaders to be willing and able to apologize when they make mistakes,” and “the fact that Mr. Malina did not and will not apologize, but instead explained his comments away, sets a terrible example to parents, to us and most importantly, to our students.”
In her defense of the resolution, Evans described a recent email Kotlikoff wrote to her husband, another Cornell professor, expressing hope that his course on indigenous resistance “would take a dispassionate look at the facts.” Evans described this interference, coupled with Malina’s remarks, as making a “mockery of academic freedom at Cornell” and “the promise of ‘…any person… any study,’ a total lie.”
The Senate also introduced a resolution to remind faculty to not use department emails for sending political messages, emphasizing neutrality and consideration for students who hold different viewpoints from their professors.
Several senators, including Prof. Begüm Adalet, government, discussed the ambiguity of the term “political,” as used in the resolution. Others argued that the resolution is speculative and vague and could result in self-censorship. Proponents, including Prof. Hadas Ritz, engineering, said the resolution would serve as a helpful “reminder about the appropriate uses of University resources.”
The Senate also introduced a revised pending resolution regarding the transparency of departmental deliberations during tenure review cases. The resolution was not discussed further.
Talia Richmond is a Sun contributor and can be reached at [email protected].