Monica Cornejo, an assistant professor of interpersonal communication, was forcibly removed from a Cornell University event this week after disrupting a speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter. She is only the latest faculty member to seek to prevent others from hearing opposing views. The question now is what Cornell will do about her conduct.
To its credit, Cornell resolved to reinvite Coulter to speak after a prior event was disrupted by protesters. On March 13, Cornell Provost Michael Kotlikoff stated that:
“Having been deeply troubled by an invited speaker at Cornell (any speaker) being shouted down and unable to present their views, I agreed that there could be few more powerful demonstrations of Cornell’s commitment to free expression than to have Ms. Coulter return to campus and present her views.”
Kotlikoff should be commended for taking a principled stance in favor of free speech.
The question, however, is how he will handle Cornejo. In a 36-second video posted by The College Fix officers indicate that she is under arrest for “disorderly conduct.” According to the site, she repeatedly responded“don’t touch me — do not touch me,” and tells them “I am a faculty member.” (I could not make out the last reported statement on the tape itself).
Cornejo is described in media reports as “one of the first undocumented tenure-track faculty members at Cornell.” She was interrupting a speech by Coulter titled “Immigration: The Conspiracy To End America.”
Her bio states that
“Dr. Monica Cornejo is an Assistant Professor in Interpersonal Communication in the Department of Communication at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Dr. Cornejo’s research uses qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the structural barriers that lead to inequities among undocumented immigrants, how undocumented immigrants draw on communication identity management and advocacy strategies to challenge those barriers, and how those strategies relate to undocumented immigrants’ health and wellbeing.
…Dr. Cornejo focuses on teaching students about different ways in which interpersonal communication can reduce or create disparities and inequities in the United States (e.g., discrimination towards sexual orientation minorities and immigrant communities), as well as the strategies members of minoritized communities (and allies, co-conspirators, families) utilize to challenge the disparities and inequities that position minoritized group members in a second-class position.”
I have previously written that universities must draw a clear distinction between free speech and this type of disruptive conduct. Cornejo has every right to protest outside of the event. However, preventing others from speaking or hearing opposing views is not free speech. It is the antithesis of free speech. It will continue until universities show the courage to discipline faculty or students engaging in such conduct.
The removal of Cornejo showed a commitment to free speech by the school. Often schools remain passive or enforce a heckler’s veto in such cases.
Yet, removal alone is not sufficient. Protesters will often plan a series of disruptions to effectively shutdown an event. Moreover, the university stated publicly that it wanted to show that such an event could occur on campus without disruption. This faculty member defied that policy and elected to heckle and disrupt the event.
She is not the first.
Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.
Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned). Even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.
At Fresno State University public health professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher, recruited students to destroy pro-life messages.
At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.
That of course is the point. She is a professor and was teaching these students that they do not have to allow others to speak if they oppose their viewpoints.
In watching their faculty engage in such conduct, one can understand why students believe that they have license to prevent others from speaking on campus. The only way to change that view is to suspend, fire, or expel those who seek to prevent others hearing opposing views by disrupting events. Again, the universities must show equal commitment in protecting their right to protest outside of events. Yet, disrupting a class or event from within these spaces is a denial of the essential commitment of higher education to the free exchange of ideas.
How an illegal is hired to work? That is against the law, so how Cornell hired her?
Chieftan
There ARE a slew of federal laws already on the books regarding employing and assisting illegal immigrants. We the People just need to demand they be enforced.
Maybe the government ought to ban funding universities that hire illegal aliens?
WTF is interpersonal communication? Teaching folk how to use a cell phone? DEI is neoracism. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/neo-racism-in-the-twenty-first-century
Ain’t global communism great?
A tenure track illegal alien. Cornell should be prosecuted.
Speaking of “trans” people (Prof. Rodriguez) the Supreme Court has already declared they are “imbeciles.” Who’s sterilization is a good thing because too many “generations of imbeciles is enough.”
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article-abstract/65/1/137/805220
Buck v. Bell. Says those exact words. And while Skinner v. Oklahoma put a little “consent” speed bump, that’s no barrier to Madison Avenue advertising campaigns created by Mad Men to manufacture the consent of “imbeciles” to be sterilized. Just like it manufactures consent to purchase a new car, new phone, beer or cosmetics.
“Gender-affirming” surgery/care is just like “Corinthian leather.” A marketing linguistic device employed to sell an idea of prestige:
https://www.leatherjacketmaster.com/blogs/journal/corinthian-leather
This is how Skinner v. Oklahoma is bypassed in order to allow Buck v. Bell’s sterilization of imbeciles eugenics to remain the law of the land. The Supreme Court is okay with “trans” “imbeciles” ending their own genes from polluting the collective gene pool of our nation.
Note: This isn’t my belief. I’m not a eugenicist. I share to enlighten readers, maybe even Turley himself, what the whole manufactured “trans” movement is really about. And it is evil.
What gets me is when they bring kids into it. Kids should not be legally capable of consenting to sterilization. It should be reserved for adults who consent, don’t you think? Scotus has said kids’ brains aren’t even fully mature for decision making till like 26. Certainly below 18 they’re not which is the whole justification for their recent 8A jurisprudence. But a minor can legally consent to sterilization? WTF?
Are adults even really consenting? What is consent? Can consent be coerced? Is consent that is manufactured by sophisticated tools of indoctrination and propaganda just like Joseph Goebbels deployed on adult Germans to gain their consent to sterilization and euthanasia truly consent?
Therein is the biggest challenge we face. And what rests inside the Missouri v. Biden censorship case before SCOTUS. Did the social media and other media companies truly consent to censor counter-narratives the government and corporations like Pfizer didn’t want given an audience? Or was their consent coerced, under duress, manufactured by Goebbels-style propaganda campaigns?
While minor consent is especially concerning, what about an entire nation’s consent? Can consent to totalitarianism be manufacutured under the US Constitution that repeals the entire Bill of Rights without amendment? I’m sure Prof. Turley has some thoughts on this. If only he read and responded to his articles on this platform we’d get to hear them.
Bravo to Provost Kotlikoff for being Courageous, Principled & Professional enough to take the first step, miles longer than a lot of educators… From Prof. Turley’s column the big Take-away Question is HOW do ‘we’ recover at least the basic framework of the ‘Real America’ in the wake of all this uncivil disobedience & disregard? When I joined college day protests, they were 99% civil & respectful and on most occasions after a bit of peaceful placard holding on the sidewalk, most of us assimilated into the audience inside the auditorium as we really did want to hear what the ‘opposition’ had to say.. quietly, respectfully & with open ears…
Cornell has a freedom of expression theme year this year. Who know?
https://events.cornell.edu/freedom-of-expression
100% positive that hiring an “undocumented alien” to be a college professor is against federal and state law.
Therefore every employee of your university is a criminal threat to me. I will treat each and every one of you people with brutality
Maybe they would also elaborate on what exactly is taught in interpersonal communication that one can get a PhD in.
“I am a faculty member” is reason enough to whack her with a billy club. Every time she says it, whack her again; let’s see how many times it takes her to realize she should stop saying it… i.e. I’ll bet she’s dumber than a dog and just keeps repeating her behavior.
IMMIGRATION LAW OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS WITHIN THE YEAR OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
“Do Not Touch Me…I am a Faculty Member”
“I’m perfectly legal and I’m a teacher, so there.”
She calls him a “Mexican” as an insult. Then she calls him a racist. Clearly not dealing with a sane person.
Aren’t universities ready to get this albatross off from around their necks?
Isn’t this woke anchor heavy now?
America will get this albatross off its neck when actual Americans TAKE this albatross off America’s neck and neutralize it with extreme prejudice.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Amen brother.
Im not gonna lie. The moment I went to the link of Monica Cornejo, and saw her photo, it was what I have imagined Gigi looks like
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Take a look at Gigi
https://cornellsun.com/2023/04/24/prof-monica-cornejo-shares-experiences-as-an-undocumented-immigrant-in-academia/
“Little Miss Affirmative Action”
It was such a good idea for America to tyrannically and forcibly impose the principles of communism.
Thanks, Abe.
NUTCHACHACHA indeed.
Oh, hell, now I can’t un-see it.
I had an uncle who flew missions over Ploesti in WWII and later became a history professor at Cornell. I wonder what he would think about all of this.
I read the book – absolutely awesome!
She appears to be a criminal teaching criminals studies and techniques.
Notice they are all so-called….WOMEN?????
@Skirmishet
Yep. That this idiot thinks because she is ‘faculty’ somehow absolves her from all that is problematic about her – really, folks; we are going to have to burn this to the ground and start over. Her age is telling, her mentality is telling, it bespeaks a great deal about immigration law and practices over the past 20 years (thanks, Obama) and we are now ruing the day we decided real education was not important and that there was some mythical ‘real world’ kids would eventually bump up against. Garbage. We did this. We have to fix it. And it is not going to be fun. Not even a little bit fun. But it is absolutely necessary.
Jonathan: I see a pattern here. “Free speech” demands that right-wing racist pundits, like Ann Coulter, be given a forum at Cornell. Any student or faculty member who objects should be expelled or fired. Where does it say in the Constitution that free expression must be confined outdoors?
So what was the title of Coulter’s address that caused so much controversy? “Immigration: the Conspiracy to End America”. That alone should have been a give away of what Coulter had to say. In her speech Coulter trotted all her usual anti-immigrant and racist tropes. Here’s a sampling:
–“Never in history has a country just decided to turn itself into another country [Mexico] like this”.
–“Why does every sad sack in the world have to come to this country? What’s the trade-off with bringing millions of people from incredibly backward cultures who do no speak the language?”
— “The pushcart operator from Pakistan who doesn’t speak his his own language–never mind ours–gets precedence over a surgeon from Denmark”. Coulter doesn’t like family reunification–where immigrants might want to join family members who are US citizens.
So what did Professor Cornejo, herself an immigrant, say to Coulter? She said: “I really appreciate your coming in and talking about these issue, that way I get to know how many racist people belong to this University”. Coulter is a Cornell alumnus. When Cornejo tried to ask a question, Coulter cut her off: “You got your chance. We’re moving on to the next question”. That prompted Cornejo to shout at Coulter–who called in the campus police to remove Cornejo–after which Coulter called Cornejo a “child”. The whole incident could have been prevented had Coulter just allowed Cornejo to ask her question. Obviously, Coulter probably wouldn’t have liked the question–so she cut off any further debate. Not exactly a commitment to free expression.
What is interesting, and something you don’t discuss, is who invited Coulter to speak on the campus? It was Prof. Randy Wayne who teaches a course “Light and Life”. Wayne promotes a fringe theory about the nature of light–not accepted by most scientists. Wayne also opposes Cornell’s DEI policies. He objected to his department’s statement that Cornell was “founded on and perpetuates various injustices including federal colonialism, indigenous dispossession, slavery, classism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia and anti-semitism”. Wayne wrote to his department head saying he did not agree with any of the statements.
There is an interesting part of Cornell’s history that illustrates some problems with its past. Cornell is noteworthy because of its famous botanical gardens–covering over 3,000 acres. It was a goal of its founders but was not realized until 1932. But the new gardens were named “Plantation Gardens”–a word associated with slavery. Over many years starting in the 1960s there were student protests over the name. Finally, in 2016 Cornell decided to change the name to “Cornell Botanical Gardens”. More than 80% of faculty and staff supported the name change.
Wayne has taught at Cornell since 1987. Don’t know but I expect Wayne would have been among the 20% who opposed the name change. That would be consistent with Wayne’s motivation in inviting Coulter to speak. He shares her white supremacist views. And that also speaks volumes about who you choose to endorse–who you think have a right to speak at Cornell.
Impeachment ‘Whistleblower’ Was in the Loop of Biden-Ukraine Affairs That Trump Wanted Probed
“The ‘whistleblower’ who sparked Donald Trump’s first impeachment was deeply involved in the political maneuverings behind Biden-family business schemes in Ukraine that Trump wanted probed, newly obtained emails from former Vice President Joe Biden’s office reveal.”
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/04/17/impeachment_whistleblower_was_in_the_loop_of_biden-ukraine_affairs_that_trump_wanted_probed_1024937.html?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
DC National Guard whistleblowers testifies about J6 ‘delay’
“The House Administration Committee’s subcommittee on Oversight will on Wednesday hold a hearing titled: “3 Years Later: D.C. National Guard Whistleblowers Speak Out on Jan 6 Delay.”
They/She/He/Me? DeWitt Public Schools Offer Pronouns Lesson to Kindergarteners and First Graders
“DeWitt Public Schools sent home a letter to Schavey Road Elementary parents last week informing them of the upcoming teaching. It specified that students would be listening to the book “They She He Me: Free to Be!” and practice using they/them pronouns. In addition, the lesson discusses what to do if students “make a mistake with pronouns” and “learn that it’s not okay to change someone’s pronouns on purpose.”
Dennis,
You keep trying to game the constitution.
The constitution does not require that free speech is indoors or outdoors.
It DOES require that wherever it is restrictions must be viewpoint neutral.
Therefore you can not say – Counter must speak in a in a sound proof underground vault so that no one can hear.
You do not seem to grasp that the right to free speech includes the right to hear.
On college campuses the norm is that Colleges provide funds to various student groups – like BLM or YAF.
Those groups are then free to use those funds for events – such as speakers. All groups have the same access to funds – usually set by their membership. All groups have the same access to campus fascilities for events.
It does not matter if Coutler’s speech was “More efficient was to gas jews”. If a student group invited her – you are free to protest,
You are not free to disrupt the event.
This is a Fire Video of a prior Coulter speech at Cornell uses as a legal instructor regarding what you can NOT do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVCJ_QVOrR4
I would note that FIRE does not address the fact that the disruptions appear to be coordinated – when one heckler is removed another starts effectively making the speech impossible. A coordinated effort to suppress speech is actually a crime.
EXACTLY the same rules apply regarding the Trump Trial in NYC – which is why Merchan’s gag order is unconstitutional.
Merchan has the power to preserve order within his courtroom. That is all. Outside the courtroom he has no control over either the content or anything else about the speech of Trump or others.
While Trump has appealed the gag order the reason that Judges frequently get away with this nonsense is because the process of appealing the gag order takes longer than the trial. The Law is actually quite clear and applies to federal and state courts. Outside the courtroom the Judge has no control over the speech of others. In the event that a defendants speech is ACTUALLY illegal – they can be separately charged to that.
“So what did Professor Cornejo, herself an immigrant, say to Coulter?”
It does not matter what she “said” it matters what she did. She disrupted the event. She sought to silence someone else.
She was not an invited speaker. Prof. Conejo is free to schedule her own event speaking on whatever she wants.
She is free to protest Coulter’s speech in anyway that does not impair the right of Coulter to speak or the right of her audience to hear what she has to say.
As is typical of your immature and shallow understanding of law, rights – pretty much everything.
You seem to think that the right to free speech means the right to create anarchy.
That is absurd. Your view or rights devolves quickly into only those willing to behave most egregiously have any rights.
That view of rights is most commonly reflected in communist systems.
BTW it is irrelevant who invited Coulter to Cornell. Further YOU are ignorant of the FACTS.
Coulter was REINVITED specifically because at her last cornell event disruption and violence made the continuing impossible.
As to “fringe” – Cornejeo is part of the college of Agriculture – HER focus has NOTHING to do with agriculture.
Apparently she could not get a job at the colleges of humanities or social sciences.
Either that or Cornell is busy trying to destroy its effective departments.
A college is free to teach whatever it wants in whatever departments it wishes.
But ultimately the reputation of the college – and its ability to attract students and the tuition that comes with them, and the alumuni contributions is based on the real world success of its alumni’s.
We need engineers who know how to build bridges and rockets. The primary role of colleges is to produce the most productive members of our society, the people who raise the standard of living for all of us.
Those colleges that fail at that can only live off their past reputations for so long.
Slowly the chickens are coming home to roost.
John Say,
Absurd is right.
Well said and I look forward to reading your other epic take down of Dennis.
John Say: Anyone on this blog who thinks you know something about the law should consider your false claim the “Merchan’s gag order is unconstitutional”. No court has declared gag orders are unconstitutional per se. Courts will review gag orders to determine if they are overly broad. See Supreme Court decisions in Carroll v. Princess Anne (1968) and Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart (1976).
In every jurisdiction around the country judges have the power to impose gag orders on attorneys, parties, or witnesses to prevent out of court statements that could be prejudicial to a fair trial. That particularly applies to DJT criminal trial where he continues to attack witnesses, Judge Merchan and family members. DJT has appealed Merchan’s gag order. Pay attention to see whether the NY Appellate Division finds the order “unconstitutional”. You will probably be disappointed!
Of course, you would know about gag orders had you taken a law school course in Criminal Procedure. Without that experience you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the law by falsely claiming “outside the courtroom the Judge has no control over the speech of others”. You don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the law. But we have known that for a long time!
I want to address another delusion of yours.
Colleges are not run by students. They are not run by faculty. They are run by an administration that is answerable to a board, that is answerable to major donors.
While some aspects of the administration of colleges are severely distorted by Government funding, ultimately the success or failure of a college is determined by its ability to take in capable students and make them even more productive.
To turn them into the captains of industry.
If the results of a college education do not make you able to produce more value – both for yourself and others – then that education is a failure.
What constitutes value is oddly enough decided by consensus – guided by reality – but in a quite different way that you seem to imagine.
The success or failure of “Light and life” will not be decided by the concensus of scientists, but by how well it works in the real world as determined by people as a whole – the “Free Market”.
Because that is all the free market is – people deciding what is important to them. We each produce more of what others value so that we can consume more of what we value. What we chose to consume directs ourselves and others as to what we value and theirfore what we and others should produce.
It is a system designed to continually raise everyone’s standard of living – NOTHING else does that.
DEI is garbage – but it is not my word on that that is important – it is that it negatively contributes to raising our standard of living.
In fact ALL left wing nonsense has a long history of failure.
In an earlier post you were Ranting that House republicans were not working to make healthcare and housing affordable.
Isn’t affordable healthcare a signature achievement of the Obama administration ? Haven’t democrats been legislatiging affordable housing for 60 years ?
That we still have massive problems is evidence of FAILURE – YOUR FAILURE.
Look at EVERYTHING – the greater its distance from government the less government subsidies it receives, the less government regulation it is subjected to, the lower its cost and the higher its quality and the greater its abundance.
The one thing that will assure that healthcare is not affordable is more government involvement.
The one thing that will assure that housing is not affordable is more government.
Ultimately Cornell answers to the free market – not students, not professors.
There is a massive amount of inertia in higher education – that is not new.
But we are already starting to see the start of course reversal.
We have reached and exceeded peak woke. We have reached peak idiocy.
The left has FAILED and is in decline.
John Say,
Again well said.
The Affordable Care Act was anything but affordable. Even Democrats said so when it was too obvious to ignore.
Affordable housing crisis is Bidenflation at work. During the Trump admin, someone making $58k a year could afford a home. Now, with Bidenflation, it is $106k and 20% down.
You belong in a cell with the ‘faculty member’… but your ilk prefers gulags, so head over to your Utopian ideal in NK, Cuba, or China.
You state that, “Wayne promotes a fringe theory about the nature of light–not accepted by most scientists.” Could you expound upon this a little bit? I’ve given his background a cursory check and he appears to me to be well grounded in the field of plant biology, but I didn’t see where he made any claim to expertise in particle physics, radiative transfer or quantum theory. Please regale us with your acumen in QED.
Thanks!
Anonymous: I don’t know anything about plant biology. My source for the “fringe theory” was Wikipedia that described Wayne’s theory as outside the mainstream of scientists who follow “evolutionary” theory. Of course, we know that sometimes “fringe” theories eventually become the mainstream. I’m not qualified to speak on that subject.
The emphasis in my comment was Wayne’s endorsement of Coulter’s racist views–that non-white immigrants are inherently inferior. Wayne opposes Cornell’s DEI policy statements. I watched a video of Wayne being interviewed that confirms his views. The fact that Wayne invited Coulter to speak at Cornell speaks volumes about his views on race and ethnicity. That’s not based on science but Wayne’s personal views–something that might also put his plant biology “fringe” theory in question.