Cornell faculty in support of democracy and academic freedom

The brazen assault on academic freedom sweeping across the country has again got Cornell in its sights.

There is a letter to the Cornell board of trustees circulating right now, and we urge all Cornell faculty to sign it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScCQXl77TWPhipU1-BDIl4RjXJfnjtbBRsRQZS1aYEHg_m2Sg/viewform?fbclid=IwY2xjawJmArJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHlyrWHA6jW86CBJJcBHosEa3xZLZYUgP0KHVV3YGyN0JbHkfvIgDgigZB-xe_aem_38-jfNWB7O_LR-2rqcZB_A

For some of the legal context, you should check out some of Michael Dorf’s posts, on Columbia and on the AAUP filling the void left by Columbia’s capitulation.

See also the longer statement co-authored with other constitutional law scholars.

Under Title VI, the government may not cut off funds until it has

• conducted a program-by-program evaluation of the alleged violations;
• provided recipients with notice and “an opportunity for hearing”; 
• limited any funding cutoff “to the particular program, or part thereof, in which…noncompliance has been…found”; and 
• submitted a report explaining its actions to the relevant committees in Congress at least thirty days before any funds can be stopped.

These requirements aim to ensure that any withdrawal of funds is based on genuine misbehavior on the university’s part—on illegal toleration of discriminatory conduct, not just on allowance of First Amendment–protected expression. The requirements aim to make clear to recipients of federal funds just what behavior can form the basis for sanctions. And each of the requirements aims to make sure that the sanction fits the offense.

Yet here the sanction was imposed without any agency or court finding that Columbia violated Title VI in its response to antisemitic harassment or discrimination. Even to the extent that some protesters’ behavior amounted to illegal harassment of Jewish students, no agency and no court has concluded that Columbia illegally failed to reasonably respond to such discriminatory behavior—much less failed to act at a level justifying withdrawal of nearly half a billion dollars in funds. The government’s action therefore risks deterring and suppressing constitutionally protected speech—not just illegal discriminatory conduct.