Cornell University refuses to help prospects for its Board of Trustees to actively strategy, leading some to say it ’s an absurd and self-serving concept used to control the outcome of the vote and maintain the table filled with yes-men.
The issue is coming to a brain with an upcoming voting in February and two pro-free conversation students who seek a position on the Board of Trustees, Cindy Crawford and J. Kennerly Davis, who are effectively blocked from reaching out to their fellow students to describe their system.
“Cornell prohibits plan action of any kind by or on behalf of any member, ” the university’s election rules position, which means both the applicants nor those who support them can make any public or private statements regarding the election.
“Campaigning includes, but is not restricted to, soliciting testimonials of one’s candidacy, written or oral contact with students about one’s candidacy, claims to the press, advertising, messages on social media and other communication technologies, press produces, etc, ” the laws read.
Making matters worse, Crawford and Davis have been labeled on the ballot as “unendorsed applicants” who “petitioned to be on vote ” — equivalent to some sort of scarlet letter. Meanwhile, the four other candidates are touted as “endorsed ” by the Committee on Alumni Trustee Nominations.
The circumstance has prompted some involved alumni to say the practices are designed to genuinely disadvantage and impede candidates who are not approved by Cornell administration, ensuring the make-up of the 64-member Board of Trustees largely remains a rubberstamp.
Consider that this month last year, the board voted — unanimously — to support the tenure of then-President Martha Pollack in the face of growing concerns over her leadership and calls for her resignation for allowing diversity, equity and inclusion dogma to infiltrate the curricula and rampant antisemitism to fester on campus.
The current situation drew a lengthy piece in National Review on Sunday by contributing editor Jack Fowler, who argued Crawford and Davis simply seek to add some fresh perspective to a board that as of now appears to be a dog and pony show.
Yet the rules surrounding their ability, or lack thereof, to make a case to Cornell voters is absurd, he wrote:
So. . . an alumnus who asks, for example, “ What, Candidate X, is your view on how Cornell is harmed by its DEI policy? ” or, “Candidate Y, did the board make a mistake by unanimously supporting President Pollack last year? ” is violating the rules. …
There does n’t seem much space for nuance or wiggle room: The innocent asking of a question puts the candidate’s candidacy at risk, especially if it prompts a mere courteous response ( no “written or oral contact”! ) to the inquiry by stating, If I answer, I will be disqualified.
Sounds Orwellian, in the Cornell dialect: Any candidate mentioned or involved in a private communication – written, verbal, maybe even smoke signals – will face immediate disqualification from the election. …
With such absurdity and rigged rules and an institutional bent to brook no potential critics, why seek the trustee position?
Crawford, senior policy counsel for Americans for Prosperity Foundation, stated in her officially approved Cornell interview that the “challenges Cornell has faced regarding freedom of
expression and institutional neutrality are squarely within my professional expertise, which focuses on upholding free speech, and First Amendment rights. ”
“The nuances between maximizing protection for expression while guarding against recasting destructive behavior as speech can be difficult to navigate. I have the experience to discern the difference, and the courage to make that distinction. ”
Davis is also an attorney, as well as former assistant attorney general of Virginia and a member of the Federalist Society.
He wrote in his officially approved Cornell interview that the “university must validate and bolster responsible behavior through consistent and decisive enforcement of university rules, and laws, that define the boundary between protected rights such as free speech and unprotected activities such as violent demonstrations and threats that stifle the legitimate exercise of protected rights. ”
MORE: After increasing demands for her resignation, embattled president of Cornell announces retirement
IMAGE: Cornell University website screenshots
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
