Cornell University’s rules for trustee elections include a startling provision: candidates are prohibited from campaigning. This isn’t a narrow restriction on certain campaign activities. It’s a comprehensive ban on virtually all communication about one’s candidacy.
These restrictions seem particularly out of place at an institution that declared 2023-24 its “Year of Free Expression.” The disconnect between this symbolic gesture and the actual suppression of campaign speech could not be more dramatic.
Under these rules, candidates cannot communicate about their candidacy through any medium, whether it’s traditional media, digital platforms, or even personal conversations with other graduates. Even more troubling is that alumni are prohibited from asking candidates questions about their positions on university issues.
Instead, Cornell controls all of the available media to alumni voters. In other words, the administration reviews and curates everything candidates produce. Accordingly, candidates either self-censor or are subject to “filtering.” This often leads to an absurd situation in which “administration-approved” campaign materials never address many of the most pressing issues—and failures—facing Cornell, such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI)-related topics, institutional neutrality, etc.
The university justified the creation of the campaigning rules by claiming they were necessary to maintain the “dignity” of the election campaign. But how can voters evaluate candidates’ merits if they’re barred from learning more about their views and plans if elected?
Moreover, rather than allowing direct dialogue between candidates and voters, the university filters all questions through administrative channels, creating a further unnecessary barrier to free expression and informed decision-making.
The principles at stake extend beyond campus politics. When institutions normalize speech restrictions in the name of nebulous concepts like “dignity,” they create dangerous precedents that can be used to justify broader censorship. Today, it’s trustee election campaigns; tomorrow, it could be other forms of institutional governance or public discourse on campus.
[RELATED: Intellectual Treason at Harvard, Penn, and MIT]
Cornell’s board makes crucial decisions affecting the education and future of thousands of students while managing one of America’s largest educational endowments. The alumni who vote for trustees need direct access to candidate views and positions.
The solution is simple: Cornell should eliminate or at least greatly loosen these speech restrictions that would be blatantly unconstitutional in a public university setting. Instead, Cornell should trust its alumni to debate the university’s future vigorously. That trust would demonstrate a genuine commitment to free expression that goes beyond empty slogans.
Image: Cornell University West Campus Sign by Jeffrey M. Vinocur on Wikimedia Commons
