LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Re: “Ignoring Cornell’s COVID Critics is Unforgivable”

To the editor:

Last week, Cullen O’Hara ’23 wrote a Letter to the Editor claiming that two Cornell Daily Sun journalists, in their article “Three Years Since COVID-19 Lockdown, Cornellians Reflect on Pandemic,” failed to fairly represent the beliefs of the Cornell population. I would like to argue against O’Hara’s claims and articulate a defense for these two journalists. 

O’Hara argues that these two journalists intentionally shed a positive light on Cornell’s COVID-19 policies and failed to include opposing viewpoints. However, in accordance with journalistic standards, Eicher and Rubinson conducted interviews through random sampling. On a campus that is composed of a liberal majority these two writers penned an article that is representative of the beliefs of Cornell’s population — even if it is not the view that O’Hara aligns with. If Eicher and Rubinson had interviewed an individual with a viewpoint that criticized the University’s policy, they would have included that in the piece.

LETTER TO EDITOR | Re: “Climate Scientists Debate Emissions Reduction in a Free Speech Event”

To the editor:

We would like to thank the Cornell community for welcoming our debate on climate science and

greenhouse gas emissions this past week. We appreciate the coverage by Sun reporters Sofia Rubinson and Eric Reilly but would like to clarify a few points made in their article.

The pre- and post-debate audience poll results were displayed on a large screen on stage in Call Auditorium during the event but did not yet include the number of polling participants. The final poll results, including number of polling participants, may be viewed at steamboatinstitute.org.