A Glimmer of Free Speech at Columbia U Over the Cornell 7 Enrages the Mob
Free speech is alive and well in our esteemed universities as long as you know what you can and cannot say and respect those tight boundaries. For instance, you cannot say that the “discourse” surrounding the Cornell 7 case “infantilizes women.”
Two students wrote an op-ed in The Columbia Sundial, an independent student paper, arguing that Jane Doe had “agency” in the incident. The Sundial also posted a dissenting opinion calling the original op-ed “rage” bait, but it still got hammered for the original op-ed.
The piece, titled “The ‘Cornell 7’ Is Really About Liberalism” and written by Christina Ma, BC ’28, and Nikos Mohammadi, CC ’28, criticizes the public discourse over the allegations at Cornell as “unproductive.”
It is unproductive, especially since only one side of the story can be told.
Jane Doe allegedly told the men to go ahead and later assured them she had a good time. The Me Too movement meant Only Me. We are still in Mattress Girl mode. Believe the woman.
Some of the student authors’ peers went into full meltdown mode.
One of the authors, Nikos Mohammadi, shared one of the many similar comments he received during the ongoing mob battering:
The “Columbia Open Discourse Alliance” canceled an event on press freedom. The Sundial’s editor was supposed to speak at the event. Columbia officially joined the mob opposing free speech and dissenting opinions, claiming it was saving it.
The group’s president said, “We did so not in spite of, but because of our commitment to free expression.” And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
The op-ed led to death threats. They also demand that the Sundial cease publication until the editorial process concerns are properly addressed. The women’s liberation movement meant women could do what they wanted without accountability. This is not to say this is Jane Doe’s situation since she was inebriated, as were the men.
However, Jonathan Turley praises the one “redeeming element”: Sundial editor Shoshana Aufzien, who wrote a magnificent reply on the essence of free speech. He called this latest example of viewpoint intolerance in higher education “depressing.”
Turley writes:
Aufzien shreds the editors of the Political Review: “Christina and Nikos’ essay cites numerous primary documents and news reports, from Doe’s lawsuit and the Tompkins County district attorney’s statement to coverage in The New York Times, CBS, and ABC.” She adds this haymaker: “The Political Review’s concern for “facts” also appears limited to facts its leadership would like to hear.”
Turley said, “Aufzien and the staff of the Sundial have given Columbia a true profile of courage. Well done, Sundial.”
Yes, well done.
Image with gratitude: Unsplash Chenwei Yao