Cornell's President Defends Free Speech Against Illiberal Impulses
Martha Pollack rejects the pernicious premise that universities should protect students from offensive ideas.

The last time I spoke at Cornell University, the turnout was tiny but attentive. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who graduated from Cornell a few years before I did, attracted a much larger crowd when she visited the campus in November, but her talk was repeatedly interrupted by loud and angry protesters, and she left in frustration after half an hour.
It was not a proud moment for Cornell. But the university's response to that embarrassing incident was encouraging, and Cornell President Martha Pollack recently provided further evidence that she is committed to defending civil debate and academic freedom against illiberal activists who cannot abide opposing views. Her example is worth emulating.
In 2019, two years into Pollack's tenure as president, the university adopted "core values" that include this statement: "We value free and open inquiry and expression—tenets that underlie academic freedom—even of ideas some may consider wrong or offensive. Inherent in this commitment is the corollary freedom to engage in reasoned opposition to messages to which one objects."
Cornell's trustees reaffirmed those values in a policy statement they adopted in March 2021. After Coulter's aborted speech, a university spokesman apologized to her and "all members of the audience who hoped to hear her remarks," saying "all Cornell students among the disrupters will be referred for conduct violations." He emphasized that their "inappropriate behavior" did not "reflect the university's values."
The necessity for that apology, of course, showed that some students had not taken those values to heart. While "Cornell's speech-protective policies are commendable," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said, such policies are "not enough independently to ensure expressive freedoms," which requires fostering "a climate of free speech" by "educating students about the policies' importance in safeguarding free expression."
Pollack seems to be taking up that challenge. A "featured theme" of the next academic year, she announced this week, will be "the significance, history and challenges of free expression and academic freedom," which students and faculty will explore through "a wide range of scholarly and creative events and activities," including lectures, book readings, art exhibits, and performances.
"It is critical to our mission as a university to think deeply about freedom of expression and the challenges that result from assaults on it, which today come from both ends of the political spectrum," Pollack said, reiterating points she made in her 2022 address to new students. "Learning from difference, learning to engage with difference and learning to communicate across difference are key parts of a Cornell education. Free expression and academic freedom are the bedrock not just of the university, but of democracy."
A decision Pollack made this month was consistent with that stance. After the Cornell Student Assembly unanimously approved a resolution urging the university to require that professors provide warnings to students about "traumatic content in the classroom," she swiftly and unambiguously nixed the idea.
Pollack recognized that such a sweeping and ambiguous requirement would have a chilling effect on instruction and undermine the benefits of a college education, which requires grappling with difficult and sometimes disquieting material. "We cannot accept this resolution," she wrote, because "the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education."
Pollack is challenging a pernicious impulse. Like Coulter's hecklers, supporters of mandatory "trigger warnings" think universities should protect students from speech that might upset or offend them.
In a 2021 Knight-Ipsos survey, just 22 percent of college students agreed with that premise. Yet 65 percent thought "the climate at their school or on their campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find it offensive."
The latter percentage rose steadily from 2016 to 2021. During the same period, the share of college students who viewed freedom of speech as secure fell from 73 percent to 47 percent.
Pollack has her work cut out for her.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Conservative speakers should be permitted to speak at Cornell. Right-wing bigots have rights, too. Cornell should declare that the right-wingers’ stale, ugly thinking constitutes an affront to Cornell’s values and to decent, then enable the Republican bigots to speak.
Declare it before? Not after you've heard what they had to say?
You're certainly... something, Kirkland.
Bigoted is the term
I get paid between $145 and $395 an hour online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining it I easily made $23,000 with no online skills. Just try it on the companion page..
.
.
.
For Details►—————————————➤ https://EarningDoors1.blogspot.Com
Agent provocateur. What are they calling that these days? False flag or something like that ...
Sounds like you would be against Nazis marching in Skokie.
Not surprising.
Liberal speakers should be permitted to speak at Cornell. Lest-wing bigots have rights, too. Cornell should declare that the left-wingers’ stale, ugly thinking constitutes an affront to Cornell’s values and to decency, then enable the Democratic bigots like you to speak.
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
God loves everybody including you Reverend, and will forgive your anger and bigotry if you pray, repent, and ask for forgiveness. I will pray for you too, to rid yourself of your anger, and to learn to love your fellow man, like Jesus showed us.
It's lip service until we see some results.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Right-wing bigots have rights
Looks like the spam-bots are mimicking RAK. I hope the trend continues. It will make them easier to spot and mute.
It says something that a university president coming out for free speech is considered newsworthy.
Yes, she was shamed into this by the Cornell Free Speech Alliance (CFSA) which is aligned with about 20 other universities and organizations in the University Open Inquiry group working to promote free speech. They host debates and discussions around the country on some of the hot-button issues of the day, particularly those that have been verboten or shouted down.
I give credit to Pollack for being willing to change and take a stand. That is rare these days (see Stanford). Let's hope she backs up her words with actions, such as really disciplining students who exercise a heckler's veto.
“… freedom of expression and the challenges that result from assaults on it, which today come from both ends of the political spectrum.”
One might have hoped that the President of a major university holding Bachelors and Masters degrees and a Doctor of Philosophy would understand the fundamental concept of complex systems such as a political spectrum requiring more than a one-dimensional chart to describe it, but apparently Pollack’s commitment to free speech doesn’t extend beyond attacks from left and right upon liberty. Perhaps someone who has her ear could link her up with “The World’s Smallest Political Quiz,” the results of which require a two-dimensional chart to describe the “political spectrum,” opening up new educational opportunities for thought at her institution of higher learning. At some point maybe someone will be allowed to teach more complex concepts such as chaos theory for understanding climate change and economics, where linear modeling breaks down as a research tool for predicting outcomes after no more than ten iterations … but maybe that’s hoping for too much?
The [WE] mob of loud and angry protesters RULE!!
What did people think was going to happen when they decided to throw away the USA (defined by the US Constitution) and pander to “democracy” instead? How exactly does [WE] mob RULES democracy ensure freedom for anyone? It's literally a majority RULES tyranny.
How about that; The Supreme Law was important after all.
I'll believe it when I read about the expulsions.
This vocal minority will do what they can get away with. As long as there are no consequences to their behavior, why would they change? Thus far it has worked out perfectly well for them to employ the heckler's veto and to express their outrage on social media. Every time a university or corporations gives in, they just get stronger.
Until the tipping point and the backlash that will follow. The Budweiser kerfluffle is just a "dress" rehearsal.
"Martha Pollack rejects the pernicious premise that universities should protect students from offensive ideas."
Like what?
That men should be able to compete in women's sports?
That an accusation of rape = proof of the event?
That the US is founded on racism?
That other cultures are equal to or better than Western Civilization?
That reparations are appropriate for things that happened hundreds of years ago?
Not only are college students not "protected" from offensive ideas, they're practically bathed in them as sacraments.
The road to Hell is paved with trigger warnings.
GOOD one!
Still verboten (I'll bet): the Holocaust.
ANYTHING but THAT!
The recent announcement of their commitment to the principle of Free Speech by Cornell University in Ithaca, NY is an important turning point in the left/right, urban/rural, have/have not, divide that has been widening in the USA for most of my 60+ years.
Urban areas, particularly urban areas where there are colleges and universities, have historically been a melting pot of ideas, perspectives, and traditions. In my lifetime many of those areas have become the last bastions for the defense of unsound economic ideas, unsound political ideas, and destructive social activism.
Rather than being places where the free and continuous exchange of ideas can lead to innovation they have become, in general, places where only specific ideas may be embraced safely. This is not the first time in history such a cloistered approach to knowledge has been adopted as a mechanism for oppressing the rabble and clinging to power. Indeed, the overwhelming opposition to opposing ideologies and perspectives is a reality in many places around the world today and has been for a thousand years in some places.
Cornell University has announced they are bucking the trend. They have recognized that intolerance of Free Speech is not a civilized behavior that should be promoted, rewarded or accepted by so-called leaders in shaping tomorrow's leaders. I see this announcement as a crack in the dam of intolerance that has shown no sign of weakening until now.
Unsound economic ideas can only be sustained over long periods through force that is overwhelming, continuous, and pervasive. Even those outcomes are temporary because economic consequences cannot be avoided, they can be delayed or shifted onto others through various forms of centralized oppression but sooner or later all bills come due. In a free market which is inevitable when Free Speech is allowed, unsound ideas have no protection from their real-world consequences.
Sure, it will be painful and uncomfortable to lift the rug that social, economic, and political consequences have been being swept under since the 1960s. Those consequences are already being stumbled over because no rug can conceal them by this time. You can check headlines daily for real-world consequences of bad ideas in many cities. Cornell is helping to lift that rug. I hope that once Cornell's leadership in the return to Free Speech is recognized it will become a popular idea once again. Then, other universities will start a mad scramble to join them and the Orwellian nightmare of the recent past will end.
Well said, Jahfre.
Reality can only be denied for time. Just look at the former Soviet Union.
The economic facts of life are the ultimate reality check.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com