STITH | Institutional Neutrality (Unless It's Palestine)

With only two weeks until Slope Day — Cornell’s biggest event of the year — Kotlikoff rescinded Kehlani's invitation as the headliner. Kotlikoff justifies this with claims Kehlani has “espoused antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiments in performances, videos, and on social media.” This stands completely contradictory to Cornell’s supposed “institutional neutrality” and commitment to “debate and dissent,” which Kotlikoff has cited ceaselessly all year. 

Zionism, a political ideology founded by thinkers like Theodore Herzl, seeks the establishment of a Jewish state in present-day Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories. Zionism became popularized against the background of historic persecution of Jewish people in Europe and the horrors of the Holocaust. While initially understandable as a response, Zionism in practice required the displacement of native Palestinian populations who already resided there. Zionism has resulted in the forced removal of over 700,000 Palestinians in 1948, the 76-year illegal occupation of Gaza and the development of an apartheid state. Therefore, the means necessary for Zionism to be enacted were and are, to this day, inherently genocidal. Consistent escalation in Israel’s colonization efforts has culminated in Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians. Israel’s brutal 18-month siege has displaced 2 million people, forced over 1.8 million Palestinians to suffer from extreme hunger, directly killed at least 50,000 Palestinians, injured 100,000 more, rendered the majority of hospitals defunct and destroyed every university in Gaza.

To be anti-Zionist, therefore, is an opposition to the genocidal, colonial tactics required to establish a new state on the mass graves of Palestinians. Kehlani’s fierce words against Zionism have been misconstrued as antisemitic by many, including Kotlikoff. Criticism of Zionism does not fall under hate speech but under protected free speech. Kotlikoff’s decision to rescind Kehlani’s invitation is not stopping “hateful views” but simply suppressing pro-Palestinian views. 

However, in practice, Cornell is not even against inviting prominent figures who express hateful views. For example, in the fall of 2023, Cornell Republicans invited Michael Knowles, who has spewed hate speech against multiple minority groups. For example, Knowles once said “for the good of society…transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.” Were the concerns of Cornell’s LGBTQ community taken seriously by the Cornell Administration? Obviously, not. 

Kotlikoff began his presidency last year with an interview in which he explained the University’s stance on so-called “institutional neutrality.” Kotlikoff stated that a university “expresses different points of view. It allows the freedom for those points of view to be expressed. For a president or provost to make statements that then crowd out those other opinions — I just don't think it's appropriate.” The rescinding of Kehlani’s invitation is a clear betrayal of one of Kotlikoff’s alleged core values. He’s abusing his authority to silence and condemn pro-Palestinian free speech in an attempt to appease a small minority of students. We must understand, however, that this is not a one-time betrayal of his values; it’s the clearest revelation that Cornell's stance on “institutional neutrality” is nothing but a facade.

In 2022, former Cornell President Martha Pollack wrote that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “deplorable” and “unprovoked.” According to the International Court of Justice, Russia’s invasion violates international law. Furthermore, the prevailing sentiment among the student body was in support of Ukraine. Pollack was making a fair moral judgement. But when over 5,000 undergraduate students supported calling for a ceasefire and the ICJ ruled Israel was committing an “illegal occupation” and “plausible genocide,” Cornell refused to criticize Israel. To obfuscate this clear hypocrisy, Cornell suddenly began to “value” institutional neutrality. 

Can an institution truly remain neutral if it profits directly from weapon manufacturers? Can neutrality exist when the University's Vice President of Communications publicly labels protesters as “antisemitic” for chanting "intifada," an Arabic word in this context meaning "shaking off occupation"? Is neutrality credible when Cornell’s president dismisses a class about Gaza as "radical, factually inaccurate, and biased"? Cornell’s complicity in and bias towards Israel’s genocide runs deeper: the Chair of the Board of Trustees, Kraig Kayser, serves as a director of a weapons manufacturer; Cornell maintains close collaborations with the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology; the university benefits financially through partnerships with arms companies; and it receives significant donations to its explicitly Zionist organizations. Even if institutional neutrality were somehow achievable, Cornell has demonstrably failed to do so.

Cornell’s commitment to neutrality was never meant to promote free speech. Cornell’s posturing as neutral is a tactical decision to suppress growing discontent on campus, and more specifically, suppress pro-Palestinian free speech. Cornell’s claim of institutional neutrality is a facade, selectively applied to silence dissent while protecting its own financial interests. By silencing pro-Palestinian speech and shielding its deep ties to war and death, the university reveals its true stance: not neutrality, not protecting students, but complicity.

The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: associate-editor@cornellsun.com.

---