Dear President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala,
We are writing in response to the office of the president's recent statement, “Fighting Antisemitism and Protecting Civil Rights.” We applaud university efforts to protect civil rights and agree that antisemitism is a real threat in the United States. We are, however, concerned with several aspects of the statement, particularly as they relate to questions of academic freedom and political expression at Cornell. Specifically, the statement implies that criticism of Israel or Zionism is tantamount to antisemitism — a position that has profound and worrying implications for speech, teaching and research. As the national AAUP stated in its recent report, “On Title VI, Discrimination, and Academic Freedom,” "This conflation of political critique with antisemitism lays the foundation for enforcement of Title VI against speech that is protected by the First Amendment and academic freedom."
One notable example is when the statement claims credit for the cancellation of Kehlani’s concert, arguing that she had “expressed antisemitic views.” In fact, she had expressed opposition to Israel and Zionism, not Jewish people or Judaism. Criticism of Israel is a mainstream view in the US, including among Jews. In March 2024, 44% of all American Jews held an unfavorable view of the Israeli government. More recently, a survey found that 53% of American Jews disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza, and 72% believe Trump is using antisemitism as a pretext to attack American universities. Relatedly, the statement claims the decision to cancel the Kehlani performance was made after having “consulted with Jewish students.” Jewish students on this campus are very divided on Israel, and we know from survey data that young people nationwide are quite critical of the war in Gaza. Jews are not a monolith. It is unfair to imply that Jewish students in general wanted this concert cancelled based on the (anti-Zionist but not antisemitic) content of Kehlani’s statements. Many Jewish students supported Kehlani’s invitation, and some did so in part because of her criticism of Israel.
The statement also operates under the assumption that the spring 2024 encampment was, by its nature, antisemitic, noting that “Individuals associated with initiating and continuing the encampment were suspended.” Trying to claim these suspensions as evidence of fighting antisemitism is particularly problematic given that the statement acknowledges, in the very next sentence, that the encampment posed no risk to Jewish or other students: “No violence or harassment was associated with the encampment.” If nobody was harassed and there is no evidence of antisemitic activity within the encampment — which there is not — then the only conclusion we can come to is that students were punished for their political views (support for Gazans, criticism of Israel) and that these political views are being equated to antisemitism.
Relatedly, we are concerned that the statement notes, without context, that the university has issued 81 disciplinary actions against “students who chose to violate university policies by infringing the rights of others.” We will not relitigate the procedural and substantive flaws in these disciplinary actions, but would just note that including them in this statement suggests that these 81 students were punished for antisemitic conduct. They were not, and it is irresponsible of the university to imply otherwise. This intellectually dishonest slippage is present in the bullet points celebrating the punishment of students who protested at the career fair, committed vandalism on the Arts Quad and those from the Pathways to Peace event. To discuss these sanctions in the context of "fighting antisemitism" maliciously implies the substance of their speech was antisemitic. Given that we now know the administration had hoped for more arrests at the “Pathways to Peace” event, it appears as though the university is pursuing punishment for the sake of an external audience. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Highlighting data on the large number of students punished as part of fighting antisemitism is particularly jarring given the University’s own data which shows “Jewish students reported the strongest sense of belonging [78%] of all racial or religious groups at Cornell” and that their “strong sense of belonging” has marginally increased to 80% since Oct. 7, 2023. That improved sense of belonging is to be celebrated, particularly at a time in which white Christian nationalism has been ascendant in the U.S. But the statement implies that a deeper sense of belonging should or could be achieved through aggressive sanctioning of political speech, including the political speech of Jewish students who are critical of Israel. We fundamentally reject such a diminished view of belonging and how it should be achieved.
The recognition that Jewish students have the strongest sense of belonging also calls into question why other racial and religious groups are not similarly the focus of intensive university efforts at outreach and support. Recent reports from Harvard, for instance, have shown that Muslim students' sense of safety and belonging has collapsed. Cornell has recently been declared a "hostile" campus by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. We applaud outreach to Jewish students and would applaud similar outreach to students who feel even less welcome here. Belonging, however, will not be achieved through repression, malicious insinuation, a flattening of our diversity (including diversity within groups), or suppression of our political disagreements.
Cornell's refusal to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism (which conflates anti-Zionism and antisemitism) makes it a model for universities and colleges under immense political pressure and we especially appreciate that the “Fighting Antisemitism” page links to other useful definitions of antisemitism. Despite this apparent openness, the "Fighting Antisemitism" webpage seems to sneak in the IHRA’s problems through the backdoor, without any deliberation or control by faculty governance (where the relevant expertise resides). It repeatedly conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and implies that the suppression of speech and sanctioning of students and others involved with such criticism is evidence of Cornell's commitment to fighting antisemitism. It is a libel to persons described by the webpage, and an affront to academic freedom.
We call on the University to revise its “Fighting Antisemitism” page to correct the problems described above, including the following: clarify the distinction between criticism of Israel or Zionism and antisemitism; remove all mentions of disciplinary action taken against students who were not accused of misconduct based in antisemitism; remove discussions of the Kehlani affair; describe measures being taken to improve Muslim students’ sense of safety and belonging. In doing so, the University can publicly affirm its understanding that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, that criticism of Israel is legitimate speech subject to no higher or lower standards than any other form of expressive activity, and that Cornell is concerned with the sense of belonging for all our students, faculty and staff.
On behalf of the AAUP Cornell Chapter, Executive Committee,
David Bateman
Eli Friedman
Dan Hirschman
Risa Lieberwitz
Suman Seth
Eli Friedman is a professor of Industrial Labor Relations. He can be reached at edf48@cornell.edu.
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.
