Your search for returned 55,857 results

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Cornell’s Administration Was Justified in Criticizing Chants

Re: Everything That Happened on Day Four of the Encampment (news, April 29)

Cornell’s Administration was justified in calling out and criticizing chants on campus of “There is only one solution: Intifada Revolution!”  It was distressing to read the didactic and overly semantic excuses that certain faculty (letters, April 29) and a follow-up story (news, April 30) offered as cover for those violent taunts.  If our campus echoed with encouraging chants about the “Klan,” the outrage rightly would rain down from all quarters, and justifications based on the supposedly neutral meaning of the word would be cast aside.  Everyone knows what it means to call for “intifada” as the “solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict: It refers to the spate of murders of Israeli civilians.  It was no simple “shaking off” and it certainly is not the solution. While we defend the right of people to engage in protected speech, community members should call out offensive conduct —inside and outside the current encampment.  Those saying hateful things, and those providing hollow cover for hate, are deserving of condemnation. — David J. DellaPelle ‘17

Jonathan M. Fordin ‘80

Wayne Forman ’80

Marshall Gilinsky ‘92

Joseph Hellerstein ‘92

Donald Motschwiller ’80

Bennett Pine ‘76

Michael Reiner ‘78

Steven Rosenzweig ‘79

Jarett Wait ’80

Gary Weber ‘81

Barry Weiss ‘81

Sylvia Emmerich Fogel ‘94

Amy Richter ‘92

Ruth Serrousi ‘92

Mark Sherwin ‘80

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.

GUEST ROOM | The Ann Coulter Event Demonstrates Poor Judgment

We write to express our dismay at the poor judgment demonstrated in the hosting and funding of Ann Coulter’s visit to campus.  We do not deny Ann Coulter’s right to express her opinions, nor a student organization’s right to invite whomever they choose, but we are very puzzled by why the event warranted the presence of the University’s chief academic officer. We find it odd that while Provost Kotlikoff has repeatedly asked that the faculty help lower the temperature of the campus climate, he chose to support Ann Coulter, a known provocateur, in an action which has in fact helped to create a tenser, less safe and more discriminatory climate on campus.  Hosting a speaker whose presence purportedly warranted such heavy policing illustrates questionable judgment and indicates a lack of true commitment to creating a community of belonging.  In The Cornell Daily Sun, Provost Kotlikoff said he supported Coulter’s visit because “there could be few more powerful demonstrations of Cornell’s commitment to free expression than to have Ms. Coulter return to campus and present her views.”  In this same statement he demurs from outright support of Coulter’s many controversial opinions and denies that Coulter’s opinions are of import to students but suggests instead that her appearance on campus is of symbolic value. Symbolic of what?  Such symbolic value comes at no small price:  Coulter’s bureau says that her fee ranges from $20,000 to $50,000 per event.  To this price we would also add the additional cost of policing and travel and housing. Does this statement indicate that the Office of the Provost ceded decision making power to outside groups in the selection of the speaker?  Or would the provost, a scientist, have sponsored a speaker that peddles conspiracy theories about his colleagues and profession or who is adamantly opposed to vaccinations?  Would police have arrested the scientists who verbally challenged such absurdities? At a moment when students, faculty and staff are deeply divided about US foreign policy, why did the chief academic officer of the University, Provost Kotlikoff, think it appropriate to bring a speaker who has publicly stated that “We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.  That is what Christianity is.  We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express.”  At a moment when many people are struggling with the ramifications of pervasive violence, why would Provost Kotlikoff think it useful to bring a speaker who famously said that “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”  At a university that proudly draws its students, staff and faculty from around the world, why would President Kotlikoff think it appropriate to offer a platform to a speaker who complains regularly that immigrants to the US are from “the most backward, dysfunctional cultures,” who suggests that migrants should be shot, and at the recent Cornell event asked, “Why does every sad sack in the world have to come to this country?” At a moment when we are encouraging civic engagement in the 2024 elections, why would Provost Kotlikoff host someone who thinks women should be denied the right to vote and that “overweight girls” should be barred entry into the country?

GROSSMAN | Let Us Show Compassion and Understanding for Each Other

In the last few months, I have spoken with dozens of Jewish students. The picture that emerges from all of these meetings is a sad one. The disruptions that we have experienced in the last half a year have resulted in tremendous pain, shared by many members of our community. 

I have also spoken with others at Cornell who told me that they feel the disruptions we see on campus are minimal and have caused no harm at all. The same claims have been made in the many letters published in The Cornell Daily Sun by multiple faculty members accepting — and even praising and encouraging — disruption by students of other students, faculty and staff. This complete disregard for the pain experienced by members of the Jewish community is itself a source of pain. 

Too many people cannot study or work in the toxic environment that we have on campus.

WILSON | The Power to Evict

Do not look away from Gaza, and let your shock at such images drive you to action — not despair. Direct action against our University’s material support for the Israeli occupation is a moral necessity given the gravity of what we are up against.