Maria Lima Valdez ‘25 protested her suspension for her private Instagram post saying “Zionists must die,” arguing “it was not a call to action.”
What is Valdez referring to, if not inciting violence?
While the means to achieve the outcome are unspecified, it would be overly naive to assume Valdez is referring to a “magical” disappearance of people. The phrase explicitly advocates for the individuals’ death based solely on their ideological identity. It does not critique “Zionism,” the ideology itself, but rather its followers. By targeting people, the post reduces their humanity to their ideological affiliation. The rhetoric openly calls for their elimination and thus crosses from opinion to constituting dangerous incitement to the worst hatred.
Valdez justified the statement by citing ignored reports of messages inciting harm against others. Have we reached a state where it is acceptable to respond with violence to equally harmful statements?
Secondly, Valdez worsens things by ignoring the message, offering not even the slightest regret.
But worst of all is the letter’s framing as an intellectual, peaceful discussion about rights and democracy. Instead, these are used to manipulate the pursuit of justice by disguising and distorting the truth. Discussing the legality of hate speech is valid and encouraged — it underpins democracy’s foundation. However, in practice, advocating violence undermines the principles it claims to defend by silencing voices permanently through discarding the liberty it professes to uphold. The aggression is covered by harmful propaganda of supposedly innocent dialogue.
President Kotlikoff rightly stated that “expression is not unlimited” when it aims “not to share thoughts and ideas, but to silence them.” As a private institution, Cornell has not only the right but also a moral obligation to preserve a peaceful campus, identify those who cross the lines and exercise judgment to “distinguish between genuine expression and speech intended to suppress others.” Private platforms are expected to establish boundaries to prevent manipulation that conflicts with their purpose or values (determining these restrictions is another matter). For instance, Instagram has policies against harmful rhetoric (“serious threats of harm to public and personal safety aren’t allowed”), and they could remove the original post for violating the guidelines. Such an action is naturally comparable to Cornell’s disciplinary measures against Valdez.
Similarly, I expected The Sun to prevent the letter’s publication: it should recognize this manipulation. By the same logic the Sun advocated against allowing the KKK on campus, it should reasonably disallow their supporters from publishing articles. If so, why does the Sun allow anyone to defend inciting ferocity under false pretenses? By choosing to publish, they not only disregard their ethical obligation to foster constructive dialogue but also contribute to the normalization of dangerous rhetoric. In fact, the public platform provided for the letter lends credibility to the distortion through public discourse. The Sun thereby becomes a participant, even if implicitly, in the propaganda and aggression themselves.
And as if we needed any proof of the consequences of such rhetoric, look at Amsterdam three weeks ago, where “Zionists” were assaulted, namely: been called to death.
– Oren Renard
PhD candidate in Computer Science
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].