The Cornell Daily Sun (https://cornellsun.com/tag/hate-speech/)
Interim President Michael Kotlikoff and Vice President for Student and Campus Life Ryan Lombardi fielded questions at Thursday’s Student Assembly meeting on the housing process, Greek Life, protected speech and co-op funding.
We might conclude that free speech does not allow for hate speech whether from ignorance or malice, but is an evolving, fluid concept depending on good will and human decency.
Cornell students in support of Palestine accused the University of silence following threats toward Palestinian students and allies, as well as criticizing their response to the Israel-Hamas war and ties to Israel.
In the wake of the sustained protests and civil unrest over the summer, the dormant debate regarding “hate speech” has reemerged on Cornell’s campus. Over the summer, students called for the dismissal of Prof. William A. Jacobson, Law, for an article he wrote critiquing the Black Lives Matter movement as well as for the termination of Prof. David Collum, Chemistry, for a series of offensive comments and jokes he made on his personal Twitter account. While the University has tepidly defended the rights of its faculty to express their private views, it is abundantly clear that many students and faculty, and indeed the editorial board of this newspaper, believe that the University should play some role in regulating “hate speech.”
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has spent time at Cornell or any other university. Last year, a survey of college students conducted by the Knight Foundation revealed that a majority of college students believe that it is sometimes acceptable to “shout down” speakers to prevent them from talking and over forty percent do not believe the First Amendment should cover “hate speech.”
Their reasoning is simple — the emotional wellbeing of students and their right to feel comfortable is more important than the right to free speech. They see it as decidedly inhumane to value a professor’s right to publish provocative articles over the security and comfort of those offended by that speech.
A tweet about police abolition from an incoming Auburn faculty member spurred a conversation about hate speech and free speech on college campuses.
Hate is not as simple as kicking sand in the face of another on the playground. More accurately, it’s the tool of tyrants.
Early in my freshman year, I was eating dinner with a group of friends when we glided into a conversation on our lives before college. I mentioned growing up on the Navajo Nation and a few friends began to inquire further. Our conversation then began to spiral and I flinched when one friend voiced his belief that “Indians love to be called ‘Indian’ because that is what the white man called them.” I recognize that the term “Indian” is not collectively considered a pejorative term by the Indigenous community. And I am not Indigenous, so it is not my intent to claim that it is derogatory. As is their prerogative, it is my understanding that identity preferences change among Indigenous individuals.
A swastika was found emblazoned on the facade of the west side of Goldwin Smith Hall facing the Arts Quad, drawing concerns from students over the current campus climate.
The debate was the second installment in President Pollack’s speaker series, which aimed to encourage discussion of the merits of free speech both on and off the college campus.
The reason that American politics is so divided today, according to Allie Stuckey, “The Conservative Millennial,” is not just because of disagreement over individual social issues, but because the nation disagrees fundamentally over “what America is and what America should be.”