On October 15, 2025, the Cornell Review and the Cornellians United for Free Speech co-sponsored a panel discussion on the October 8 interim report of the Task Force on Institutional Voice.
On the panel were David Bateman, Professor of Government and President of the Cornell Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP); Robert Platt ‘73 Law ‘76, President of Cornellians United for Free Speech; and Ross Marchand, Program Officer for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Pros and Cons of the Draft Report
Marchand likes the line between what can be addressed by the institution (vs by individuals) being drawn with respect to germaneness to the university’s mission. This gives individuals a wide range of issues where individuals can express their own views. Cornell’s core values are so broad that they could cover statements on global warming. The draft includes allowing institutional voice for “threats to democracy,” which could include the issue of banning mail-in ballots.
Bateman agrees with Marchand about the “chilling effect” of using institutional voice. Bateman is glad that the report avoids the term “institutional neutrality,” which Bateman believes does not exist. It comes down to who decides the mission and core values of the university. Restraint in speaking out on issues should be highest at the top of the organization chart and decrease at lower levels. Bateman did not appreciate the emphasis of everyone stating that they do not speak on behalf of the university. The report calls on departments to come up with procedures to adopt positions. Because academic departments are the basic unit of university governance, they have to have a way to speak. Bateman objects to the disclosure of departmental votes. Such disclosure causes the “chilling effect” that the task force intends to avoid.
Platt found it poorly written and poorly thought out, and in need of work. Platt claims that we are trying to cure the trend in campus advocacy to focus on having the President issue a statement agreeing with the advocate rather than trying to get as many members of the community as possible to agree with the advocate’s view.
As an example of the abuse of the test contained in the report, Platt imagines a group of students advocating for rutabagas. They want rutabaga-flavored ice cream at the Dairy Bar, cooperative extension to get farmers to grow rutabagas, and rutabagas to be sold at the Ithaca farmer’s market. So, their demands are relevant to the university’s mission. They then get the Student Assembly to pass a resolution that (1) declares the promotion of rutabagas to be a “core value” and (2) demands that the President issue a statement promoting rutabagas. Under the current draft report, rutabagas would be a valid topic for the President to speak with an institutional voice.
Platt’s final concern is that the document lacks a clear enforcement mechanism. It depends on the self-restraint of whoever is currently President. What happens if someone wants to end land acknowledgements as being inconsistent with the new institutional voice policy? Who would be in charge of enforcing that issue? Finally, Platt noted that the report’s discussion of the Board of Trustees is odd. If one agrees with Prof. Bateman’s observation that there should be more restraint the higher up we go in the organization chart, with the Board of Trustees being at the top of that chart. Platt says the Board Chair should rarely speak on anything. Instead, the report says that the Chair of the Board should speak on behalf of the Board (and not the University).
Should Cornell Affirm or Adopt the Kalven Report?
FIRE believes that the Kalven Report is the best expression of institutional voice. If the university’s mission is everything, maybe it’s nothing. In some ways, the draft report does not give enough details. “Our North Star is the Kalven Report.”
Bateman is not a fan of the Kalven Report. All frameworks contain some exceptions, including the Kalven Report. Can one argue that the Israel-Palestine debate is not germane to the University’s mission? The community can debate that question, but should debate it courageously, with the community rather than the President deciding the question.
Where Should Cornell Draw The Line?
FIRE has seen cases where a college will adopt institutional neutrality and then adopt a statement on Gaza, Health Care Access, or Election Results. But that gives FIRE the opportunity to send a letter challenging those statements. Usually, the college will respond with an apology and a reaffirmation of institutional neutrality.
Platt asks if the report is supposed to be a collar on the community as a whole or on the Third Floor of Day Hall. Most people approaching the report think of it as putting a collar on Day Hall.
Platt also noted the need for an enforcement mechanism. When Platt, Marchand, or Donald Trump lobby from outside the Ivy Tower for Cornell to take a public position on an issue, there are inherent problems with being outsiders. If there were a Vice Provost for Free Expression and Academic Freedom, then someone on the inside to provide thoughtful guidance on issues arising under the report without being an outsider.
Platt said, “If a good part of our objective is to empower everyone on the Cornell campus to express themselves – to express their viewpoint, it is not a problem of tenured faculty. Tenured faculty will say whatever they want, whenever they want, and not expect a lot of consequence for it. The students, on the other hand, are at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. And a lot of them are really managed in perhaps a prudish way by these student affairs people. And that is where a lot of the cancel culture comes from.”
Bateman said the footnote about student organizations was a negative. Student organizations should govern themselves. Bateman said, “We want campuses to be content full, and students should have the most protection for speech.” Bateman wants university positions to be decided after thorough on-campus debate, and not be decided by a number of wealthy donors, a number of angry parents or students holding a rally.
Marchand responded to Bateman’s suggestion that a campus consensus must form before the President speaks with his institutional voice. Marchand noted that there were “Red Scare,” COVID, and George Floyd periods where it appeared that everyone was on the same page, but in retrospect, there were significant differences of opinion. So, consensus is not a replacement for the idea of institutional neutrality.
The task force welcomed comments and feedback through email (tfiv@cornell.edu) or through an anonymous feedback link, which accepted responses until Nov. 14. Both FIRE and the AAUP intend to submit further written comments to the task force, and all panelists encourage everyone to follow the issue and to submit their ideas. For example, on the day before the panel, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) submitted a public letter to the task force generally approving the report but criticizing one aspect of how it drew the line on limiting institutional voice. ACTA noted, “Particularly at the departmental level, it is encouraging to see interest in avoiding ‘imposing a majoritarian perspective that may inadvertently suppress dissenting views.’”
The AAUP follow-up statement was posted. The Cornellians United statement was posted, and the FIRE comments were filed with the Task Force but not publicly posted
