Cornell Insider

Today’s editorial in the Daily Stun (no typo) about freedom of speech at Cornell conveys that the editors are on the fence.  It’s as if they almost want to make the right call, but just can’t quite bring themselves to it.  Sure, it’s nice that they remind us how they supported keeping ‘Cornell’ in the Cornell Review’s name, but this isn’t exactly avant-garde.  With the exception of an extremely vocal and demonstrative minority, everyone up to Skorton knows that removing the ‘Cornell’ title is absurd, baseless, and inhibits freedom of speech and the presses.  For acknowledging this the Stun scores an easy free throw – one point.

But when it’s time to really step out from their comfort zone, to side with a religious (read: Christian) group on an equally obvious call, they fail miserably.  Chi Alpha’s decision to ask their homosexual leader to step down is completely legitimate and in line with everything that is University, religious freedom, non-discriminatory, free expression, speech, love, you name it.

The situation is simple: there is a religious fellowship group on campus / the group elects a leader, expects them to be a beacon of said religion’s beliefs / the leader openly fails to follow one of those beliefs / group decides leader is not shining beacon / leader is asked to step down.  Where is there discrimination or bias? Traditional Christian doctrine states that homosexuality is sodomy and forbidden.  One may find this facet of the religion archaic and absurd, or timeless and logical.  One may argue that this is not even traditional doctrine.  Not the point.  The point is that upon announcing that he is a homosexual, and lives his life in line with that preference, he publicly contradicts one aspect of the group’s doctrine he agreed to uphold.

If Chris Donohoe was subject to a barrage of slurs and ‘hate speech’ from Chi Alpha upon coming out, there would be substantial room for criticism and controversy.  If Donohoe was a minority and denied his position based on race, then there would be both a breach of the group’s integrity and an episode of prejudice.  If either of these were the case, then maybe Cornell’s unfortunately over-broad and vague campus code would warrant backlash against the student group.  Fortunately, there has been no such discrimination by the Christian fellowship.

Allow me to present a few analogies to make this overwhelmingly simple situation even more fundamental.

Another Christian doctrine is to not covet one neighbor’s wife and commit adultery, or to lust and satisfy one’s immoral sexual desires.  If Donohoe were married, and it became public information that he was cheating on his wife through various confidential orgies, he would be asked to step down.  Would there be a campus-wide initiative to protect ‘discrimination’ against the sexually promiscuous and orgy-inclined community? Probably not, but you never know.

Another situation: the leader of a Muslim Fellowship on campus is publicly known to be a drunkard, party animal, and wayward alcoholic – characteristics incompatible with someone who volunteers to be a beacon of Islamic thought.  If such a person would be asked to step down, I can confidently say that the Daily Stun would not dedicate its editorial page to railing against the rampant discriminatory speech at Cornell that threatens the safety of Cornell’s drinking community.

The fact is that an organization removed its leader because the leader didn’t adhere to that organization’s principles.  It is this same train of thought that causes politicians to resign, athletes to go on suspension, presidents to be impeached, and, surprise, religious leaders to step down from their roles.  Yet certain students, and now our flagship newspaper, have erupted into a violent storm, flinging ‘discrimination’ accusations every which way.

One last hypothetical situation – a particularly radical one.  Let’s say the leader of the LGBTQ club had a dramatic transformation of ideology and decided he no longer supported gay marriage, and was a straight man.  My assumption is that if he tried to retain his position, he would be removed.  Would the Stun’s editorial pages be littered for months with diatribes against discrimination towards heterosexuals? Doubtful…probably not…no.

Chi Alpha retains every right to have members, choose members, choose leaders, and remove leaders.

So if the editors at the Cornell Daily Sun so adamantly carry the torch of this country’s citizens’ inalienable right to free speech, religion, and assembly, then why do they manipulate the Chi Alpha debacle into a discrimination case?  Judging by today’s editorial it’s to garner support for the implementation of an inherently unconstitutional campus code bylaw which would forbid ‘discriminatory speech.’

But since there is clearly no discrimination in Chi Alpha’s choice, then – to speak mathematically – there is an irremovable discontinuity in the editorial’s logic.  A hole, if you will, that can’t be filled.  The writers have no foundation upon which to levy their attacks against Chi Alpha or their support for our school’s flawed ‘speech codes.’  They need the Chi Alpha situation to be one of discrimination in order to legitimize the speech code clause.

So their qualm here must be with something deeper – they apparently support freedom of speech and expression, but only under particular circumstances.  Their real objection then must be with the tenants of a particular religion or student group that chooses to embrace those beliefs that clash with the campus status quo.  The editorial says at one point that Chi Alpha “excluded and silenced [student] voices based on [the organization’s] beliefs.”  The editors are clearly aware that Donohoe was removed because of his conflicting beliefs, yet oppose the removal.

In essence, they oppose a religious group upholding their religious beliefs.  What the writers really find objectionable and regressive, then, are the specific beliefs of the religion.  They believe student groups acting on such beliefs are contradictory to Cornell’s mission and are deserving of castigation.  If there is not an infringement on freedom of speech by the Student Assembly attempting to inhibit Chi Alpha’s presence on campus, then there is an infringement on the freedom to exercise one’s religion.

Such decisions are not for any student or newspaper to meddle in.