Passed: April 5, 2024
Vote results and comments
Posted: February 12, 2024
Faculty Senator Co-sponsors: (updated 2/14/24)
Risa Lieberwitz, Faculty Senator, ILR School
Richard Bensel, Faculty Senator, Department of Government
Courtney Roby, Faculty Senator, Department of Classics
Harold Hodes, Faculty Senator, Department of Philosophy
Angela Cornell, Faculty Senator, Cornell Law School
Laurent Dubreuil, Department of Romance Studies
Elizabeth Brundige, Faculty Senator, Cornell Law School
André Kessler, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
(additional faculty cosponsors listed below the resolution)
Resolution:
Whereas, on January 24, 2024, the Cornell Administration announced its new Cornell Interim Expressive Activity Policy, which applies to all Cornell faculty, students, and staff;
Whereas, the Cornell Administration has adopted and has implemented the Interim Expressive Activity Policy (as University Policy 4.23) without discussion, debate, input or a vote by the Faculty Senate;
Whereas, the Interim Expressive Activity Policy includes new substantial restrictions on expressive activity, including:
Establishing an “expectation” of registration for outdoor demonstrations of 50 or more people on the Ag Quad, the Arts Quad, Bailey Hall Plaza, the Biology Quad, Day Hall Plaza (East Avenue), the Engineering Quad, Ho Plaza and the Cornell Botanic Gardens Nevins Welcome Center;
Prohibiting “sticks or poles” at outdoor demonstrations;
Prohibiting the use of candles at outdoor demonstrations unless approved by health and safety personnel;
Requiring that all posters, signs, flyers and banners must be dated, and must include the name of the sponsoring Cornell organization or unit or individual;
Prohibiting placing posters, signs and banners on trees or any outside structures;
Whereas, the Interim Expressive Activity Policy states that it will be enforced through “the appropriate office for disciplinary action” and does not specify the penalties for breaking the rules;
Whereas, academic freedom and freedom of expression are fundamental to faculty and student teaching and learning, research, and public speech, which are protected in the Cornell University Policy Statement on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression, the Cornell Faculty Handbook, and the Cornell Student Code of Conduct;
Whereas, the Cornell Campus Code of Conduct states: “Outdoor picketing, marches, rallies, and other demonstrations generally pose no threat of long-lasting exclusive use of University grounds or property. No university permit is required for such outdoor activities. The presence of a counter-protest does not itself constitute a disruption to a University function or authorized event”;
Whereas, there are serious concerns about contradictions between the new restrictions in the “Interim Expressive Activity Policy” and protections of academic freedom and freedom of expression for faculty, student, and staff, as provided in the Cornell Policy Statement on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression, the Faculty Handbook, the Student Code of Conduct, and the prior Campus Code of Conduct;
Whereas, Article XIII sec. 2 of the Bylaws of Cornell University states that one of “The functions of the University Faculty shall be to consider questions of educational policy which concern more than one college, school or separate academic unit, or are general in nature”;
Whereas, Article X of the Organization and Procedures of the University Faculty (OPUF) delegates these University Faculty functions to the Faculty Senate as the representative body of the University Faculty;
Whereas, “educational policy” includes Cornell policies related to academic freedom and freedom of expression, such as the Cornell Interim Expressive Activity Policy;
Whereas, the Cornell Interim Expressive Activity Policy was discussed at the University Assembly meeting of February 6, 2024, prior to the Faculty Senate receiving any notice about or opportunity to discuss the Interim Policy;
Be it resolved, that the Cornell administration shall suspend any implementation of any new restrictions in the Interim Expressive Activity Policy, including those listed in the third “whereas” clause of this Resolution, until the Faculty Senate has had an opportunity to discuss and vote on the Interim Expressive Activity Policy, including discussion and votes on any and all Faculty Senate resolutions for amendments to the Interim Expressive Policy;
Be it further resolved, that the Faculty Senate shall engage in full discussion and debate about the Cornell Interim Expressive Activity Policy, including concerns about contradictions between provisions in the Policy and other Cornell Policy protections of academic freedom and freedom of speech and expression;
Be it finally resolved, that after the Faculty Senate fully considers the Cornell Interim Expressive Activity Policy, the Senate shall vote on the Policy, including any and all Faculty Senate resolutions for amendments to the Policy.
Additional faculty cosponsors (added 2/14/2024):
Simone Pinet, Department of Romance Studies
David Bateman, Department of Government and Brooks School of Public Policy
Rachana Kamtekar, Departments of Philosophy and Classics
Paul Sawyer, Department of English
Suman Seth, Department of Science and Technology Studies
Eric Cheyfitz, American Indian and Indigenous Studies Program
Alexander Livingston, Department of Government
Nerissa Russell, Department of Anthropology
Judith A. Byfield, Department of History
Natalie Melas, Department of Comparative Literature
Sandra L. Babcock, Cornell Law School
Paul Fleming, Departments of German Studies and Comparative Literature
Elke Siegel, Department of German Studies
Rachel Weil, Department of History
Allison Weiner Heinemann, ILR School
Jim DelRosso, ILR School
Juno Parrenas, Science and Technology Studies; Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies
James A. Gross, ILR School
E.Wayles Browne, Department of Linguistics
Patchen Markell, Department of Government
David A. Levitsky, Departments of Nutrition and Psychology
Eli Friedman, ILR School
Matthew Evangelista, Department of Government
Ileen A. DeVault, ILR School
Gunhild Lischke, Department of German Studies
Raymond Craib, Department of History
Begum Adalet, Department of Government
Shannon Gleeson, ILR School, Brooks School of Public Policy
Kate Bronfenbrenner, ILR School
Beth Lyon, Cornell Law School
John S. Henderson, Department of Anthropology
Adam T. Smith, Department of Anthropology
Chloe Ahmann, Department of Anthropology
Saida Hodžić, Department of Anthropology, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Tad Brennan, Departments of Philosophy and Classics
Shaun Nichols, Department of Philosophy
Lucinda Ramberg, Department of Anthropology; Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies
Albert R. George, Department of Systems and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Jason Frank, Department of Government
Deborah Dinner, Cornell Law School
Noah Tamarkin, Department of Anthropology; Science & Technology Studies
Magnus Fiskesjö, Department of Anthropology
Marina Welker, Department of Anthropology
Mari Jarris, Department of German Studies
Paul Nadasdy, Department of Anthropology; American Indian and Indigenous Studies
Rebecca Slayton, Department of Science & Technology Studies
Sheri Lynn Johnson, Cornell Law School
Emad Atiq, Cornell Law School
Tristan Ivory, ILR School
Sturt Manning, Department of Classics
Phoebe Sengers, Department of Information Science; Science & Technology Studies
Sarah Besky, ILR School
what are these changes if not a solid step in this direction “https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/opinion/free-speech-academic-freedom.html”, to intimidate the voices even before they emerge. candle light vigil is now viewed from the angle of arsony? safety?
What extraordinary events have happened on the campus in a historical context to necessitate such changes when the university has done just fine through more vigourous protests or periods? Why “fix” something that is not broken?
I would like to speak up in defense of the Interim Expressive Activities Policy. The campus has been very tense for the past few months, and some clear policies in the interest of balancing student safety and student speech is important. The IEAP is content-neutral and extremely clear in its rules. It does not regulate WHAT is said, simply the FORUM in which the speech is expressed. This is a benefit to all students: it means that students can clearly determine when they are following the rules and push back if the rules are applied incorrectly, and also that they can easily decide when they want to break the rules. Students that are following the rules can feel confident that if their actions are ever questioned by the administration it should be easy to establish that they were on the right side of the rules. Conversely, students who are victimized by those breaking the rules can clearly demonstrate that the behavior of the perpetrators crossed a line.
Even if some of the details of the IEAP are not ideal, I think that it is important to have clear and consistent policies. Previous policies were neither clear not consistently applied, which leads to insecurity for everyone. Students who speak do not know if and when the rules will be applied. Students who are made to feel unsafe do not know whether they have any recourse. Such rules are not there to arbitrarily control people, but to instead give people a feeling of control over their environment. It would be foolish to, in the interest of changing some cosmetic details in the current version of the rules, we threw out the certainty and security that a set of common policies provides.
I do not believe that this interim policy is as restrictive to freedom of expression as this resolution would have you believe.
The three portions of the policy are written with the protection of the faculty and students in mind.
1. The policy does not include groups of less than 50. Groups of over 50 should make known their intent, so that proper space and facilities can be secured, and we minimize the possibility of injury to students, faculty, and staff.
I believe that it is already in the works to have groups responded to within 24 hours. Instead of one administrator making up decisions, it could be students, faculty, and yes campus security and administration.
2. Do we really want people, who may not even be students, in possibly heated situations to be allowed to have poles and sticks?
3. Prohibiting open flames and fires unless approved is bad? Again sounds like protecting our campus.
The interim policy was put in place to plug some holes in the policy that is still in effect and is outdated.
Faculty discussion on this proposal is not prohibited.
Two final thoughts.
An individuals rights end when they step on someone else’s rights.
Do we really want a group from outside Cornell in excess of 50 people coming on campus with sticks and poles who do not share the values that the vast majority of our community at Cornell. Do we want our community afraid to come outside?
Are there other ways that we as faculty can support this resolution?
We suggest you contact Senator Risa Lieberwitz.