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.
My father was a college professor and I grew up in that environment. At that time, there was something called decorum. There were things that were done and things that were not done. I’m sure everybody had private feelings about things but it would have been considered shameful to display those feelings in public. Everybody made a point of being respectful and polite. A few years ago when I was teaching at a local university, I was shocked by the environment. The intellectual level was a little lower than a row of fish vendors in an Italian open air market. Nobody seemed to have ever heard about not bringing up politics or religion in a social or academic setting. In my job interview, my supervisor kept bringing up her hatred of Trump, demanding that I confirm her belief that all the problems were his fault (which I refused to do). But above all, nobody seemed to have any social graces. I felt like much of the faculty were 1st generation college graduates, and they may have been since colleges rely so heavily on adjuncts nowadays. I didn’t feel like I was teaching in a university. I felt like I was an employee at Walmart. If you think about it, with all due respect to Walmart, the environment in universities today is exactly like that of a Walmart parking lot where people in pajamas brawl over stolen made in China junk.
Thank you for the comparison and the laugh.
“The intellectual level was a little lower than a row of fish vendors in an Italian open air market.”
And these are the people in positions of [abusing] power all across government.
What do you do with Coenejo? ——-You let her go and ask her to be more respectful of others. She did not hurt anybody. Being an ill mannered obnoxious lout is not a crime.
Robert, would your boss just let you go if you attacked someone trying to speak at the office and had to be removed by the police? Would you be so sanguine if it had been a MAGA hat wearing man shouting down a female leftist speaker?
Are you Jewish? You hate the innocent don’t you Christ killer?
Relieve her of her duties and send her on her way. This is another foreign agent like Talib, Omar or AOC spreading their propaganda to our youth contradicting our Constitutional rights to favor unchecked immigration laws. If not perhaps Conservative Speakers should start filling federal civil rights lawsuits against these entities for violating their civil rights.
Let her go where !!
Well, there needs to be some kind of deterrent applied – suspension with out pay , an apology to her students and the club who sponsored the speech , for example
As in Terminate employment, goodbye, see ya later, hasta luego. Good luck at McDonald’s!
Did I understand the article to say Cornejo is enabling “undocumented” (in other words illegal) immigrants under Cornell University’s authority? I find that disturbing. What to do with her? You investigate her further.
Violating the rights of others is a crime – not only is it a crime, but it is the entire reason that we have govenrment and laws.
While Coenejo’s violation is small – and therefore the punishment should fit the crime, it is still real.
This incident is just one more illustration of the failure of our system of higher education. Our colleges and universities, in their current form, have outlived their usefulness. It is a disservice to our children and our society to continue to send young adults to these centers of non-learning. So much taxpayer money has been thrown at the elitist education establishment and so little of it has been for education.
It is quite obvious that radical prog/leftists and other similar fanatics have passed the point of rational thought and are as ideologically trapped in a jihadist mentality of destroying all that stands in opposition to them. Just as there has never been, in the past 1600 years, any successful attempts to rationslly deal with Islam’s mind-controlling ideology; so there is no hope of reclaiming these purposefully manufactered thugs who preach “Death to America” and other such vitriol. Our problem, to save this nation, is how to neutralize their hatred and gross indoctrination. I gather from data easily available, that a great majority of them receive much of their subsistence through government doles of one form or another. Since doles are not constitutionally guaranteed rights, these funds could be revoked in instances of demonstrations of hatred aimed at our constitution; thereby leaving such radicals forced to spend their energies on survival rather than the creation of discord. Why should we fund anything, from welfare to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that works against the health of our nation and constitution. Hit them where it hurts.
That is a great idea except for one problem. The corrupt left has placed in power people who will ensure adequate funding of their causes.
That, sir, is the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
The faculty member would have had more credibility if she had challenged Coulter to a debate, rather than shout her down. But liberals fear debate like a cat fears water. So they resort to cheap theater rather than intellectual engagement.
When you are on the wrong side of every issue you will not debate. How does a liberal debate the open border, inflation due to massive spending, paying off student loans as welders pay the loans for their vans and tools, defunding the police, kids being transed against parents, boys playing sports against girls, men in women’s locker rooms, forcing Israel to pause before defeating Hamas, not arresting Hamas goons when they close roads, abortion up to the 9th month, not mandating voter IDs, giving money to Iran, Hamas and the PA, having your political opponent arrested for documents that the Democrat also had, ending the Keystone Pipeline, force feeding us electric cars and on and on.
Two people cannot have an intellectual debate when there is only one intelligent person in the room. This undocumented harpy may have a piece of paper enabling her to be hired by some prog/left university to spew hatred, but that does not indicate intelligence nor wisdom. Don’t waste time engaging with her unless it is an LEO dealing with her anti-American actions.
It seems like letting parasitic fleas brainwash puppies. Why wouldn’t parasites want to brainwash future hosts? They stand to gain from it.
I will give her credit for one thing though, that T-shirt look is certainly what I want the person teaching my child for $65,000 a year to be wearing.
Think about John Houseman in The Paper Chase, Professor Henry Kissinger or Condoleezza Rice and then think about this “first undocumented fast track professor” and then you will understand why it may be a good idea to have your kids study Chinese going forward.
I am lucky to be old and to have lived in the real America, not the America where lunatics think having a undocumented, rude and obnoxious person not only being a professor but also being able to be UNDOCUMENTED and then demanding that an invited speaker be banned. If she is arrested for this action maybe she should be deported. Yeah right, I am betting that this will not only speed up the “fast track, it will probably have her getting hired by Harvard or Columbia.
I don’t like to judge a book by its cover; however, why is it that hands down these DEI protestors are almost unanimously disheveled, crudely dressed and lacking in personal grooming ( and frequently of a hi BMI?) and usually female, although many times using a non gender pronoun or plural pronoun . It’s a stereotype that is usually fulfilled , so I’m notso sure it is a stereotype at all !
Your description is valid. The reason they always look like this is because people with the self-discipline to always appear and act professional don’t get involved in this type of fracas to start with.
My freshman Civics prof encouraged all his students to attend both Young Democrat and Young Republican events on campus (The Presidential Election of 1976). I myself was a Young Republican and others were Young Democrats but it never even occurred to us to act disrespectful when we attended the other Party’s event. Incidentally we were expected to be appropriately groomed as well.
For many of us it was the introduction to Politics.
I call it the Coalition of the Defective.
Is Cornell University a private entity?
Not the college of agriculture where she “teaches” . That is part of the NY State University system
Deb
Great information. The details of the these structures, always inform the debate. I was not aware of this particular wrinkle.
“…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.”
Was this one of the strategies the Professor teaches?
The university would be wise to terminate the Professor’s employment for cause and do away with the programs that are producing such rubbish.
Learn English, immigrate legally, work hard, commit crimes, raise a family, gain a useful occupation or education is the only strategy required for success.
This also reinforces the idea to young people that anything is acceptable. That is why we have lawless “protests” blocking bridges and other peoples’ lives, livelihoods, and safety.
I got a real kick out of reading what her course is all about and her specialty. I cannot believe students would actually pay real money to attend it.
There is a free course in the Bible that says “Do unto others what you would have them do to you”. I learned that in grammar school. And it works! Obviously this professor missed that lesson, probably out agitating somewhere.
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts on this site, I traveled widely in the world as a young child and on through my later years. No matter where I have been, a smile and polite words, even if not understood by the people I am talking to is always rewarded with kindness and friendliness, even in New York and Paris.
When you talk to patients from all over the world, who don’t understand English or only barely, you still get great responses if you show respect, smile and show kindness and interest in their lives and problems. It is so simple. People have a real problem staying angry and threatening if you just stay patient, friendly and understanding.
It’s even simpler in the non medical world.
Now obviously there are people out there who have no desire to communicate but only to disrupt and force their will upon you but that is another setting entirely.
If they take the time listen, I think they fear they may actually learn something useful. You can learn so much by listening but you learn virtually nothing when you’re talking, or screaming for that matter.
Her course may very well fulfill some kind of DEI type requirement for students
Where was the resistance when a trillion dollars were being sent to Africa? The Ukrainians don’t want fish, they want fishing poles. If the ideas of the Founding Fathers are so great, then they should be good for the Ukrainians, too.
it is Time to end Federal Aid to Colleges including the backing of student loans
End ALL government involvement in the economy.
All subsidies, all regulation.
There is no good that comes of government acting in the economy.
Dennis or some other left wing nut ranted recently that House republcians were not working on affordable heatlhcare and affordable housing?
I thought democrats had fixed that ? Is ObamaCare a lie ?
Of course it is.
Government involvement makes things more scarce and more expensive.
I’ve forced myself to read the excerpt from her bio twice. It is beyond cringe. Just a bunch of $5 words strung together. Word salad. Language from a mediocrity trying to impress others with their “intellect”.
“qualitative and quantitative methodologies” – Meaning, I concoct surveys and have people rate how they feel with numbers to try to give legitimacy to what I already imagine is happening.
“structural barriers” – Fences and walls? Who knows what she means here.
“inequities” – The Left’s favorite $5 word they use to gin up emotions because not everybody has the same level of intelligence, skill, ambition, discipline, expectations, etc.
“undocumented immigrant” means an illegal alien.
“communication identity management” – Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
“advocacy strategies” – I think this is code for turning yourself into an azzhole by protesting to get your way.
And on and on. Just sickening to know that not only is this garbage being rewarded in an Ivy League university but students are paying $60K a year to lap up this worthless garbage.
Anonymous, I wish you would create a name for yourself, but I loved your comment!
Kamala Harris helped her write the bio.
Either Kamala Harris or Professor Irwin Corey.
I came away astonished that anyone in “Communications” at Cornell could write such an incoherent statement either grammatically or through the use of ill defined terms. Take for example the following snippet, “Dr. Cornejo’s research uses qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the structural barriers that lead to inequities among undocumented immigrants”. First, the term “undocumented immigrants” implies a focus on got-aways because the INS presumably has registered them (and therefore these individuals are documented) even if they are coming across illegally at an unauthorized border crossing. Most certainly if the administration is flying them on commercial flights to places such as New York from the southern border TSA requires some form of documentation on the person to board the flight. However, I am pretty sure that the good professor does not mean to limit her undoubtedly insightful research to just got-aways. As far as grammar goes, the good professor uses the phrase “inequities among” to identify a problem. While there may be inequities among illegal aliens from Central America, Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa, I am pretty sure that is not what is bothering the good professor. I rather suspect it is has something to do with the tax payer funded services received or lack thereof resulting in economic inequities between illegal aliens and long established citizens or otherwise lawful residents. Perhaps the illegal status is hindering the ability to obtain work permits for “undocumented immigrants” and if they came in through authorized means work permits would be available?
As a professor in an institute of higher learning, I would expect the copious use of technical terminology in any scholarly discourse but I would also expect clarity and precision in communications especially from a “Communications” professor. I am not impressed.
“one of the first undocumented tenure-track faculty members
Despite that, the whole “replacement theory” conspiracy, is just a right wing fever dream.
Everyone should read Michael Lind’s depressing piece in Table titled “Blue Morning”.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/blue-morning-inherited-future-demographics
Interesting – but most of the article is at odds with its opening.
It is Democrats – not republicans who are consistently in the past two decades alienating their own base.
It is the republican base that is growing.
We are in the midst of a once in a lifetime – possibly once in a century or more political shift.
And the evidence is that the left is on the WRONG side of that shift.
Many analysts are predicting that the US is re-industrializing. Further we are shifting to regional rather than global sourcing.
Foccused first on Canada and Mexico and then on South america, the Pacific and probably the UK.
NOT Europe, NOT africa, NOT the mideast.
This will boost the need and wages of blue collar tech workers.
I would further note that while the GOP is hostile to illegal immigrants right now – most of these are coming from failed socialist countries. These people are NOT going to be as attracted to the Democratic party as the mexican immigrants of the past.
Further though Republicans do not have majority support in most minorities – GOP minority support has been consistently growing for several decades. the GOP is approaching parity among hispanic voters, gaining among, black, asian, and jewish voters,. Gaining among men.
For many reasons it is the DNC that is in the bind today.
I agree with Peter Teal – Peak woke was several years ago.
The nonsense of the left has both failed and has alienated people.
But for the fact that centrist democrats and independants have not yet been thoroughly enurred to the lefts claims that Republicans are somehow a threat to absolutely everything – we would be seeing a landslide in 2024.
If this were a contest of policies – Democrats are DEAD – their policies are highly unpopular with everyone except the far left.
There’s an old axiom that seems fitting here: Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. There are plenty of fine unheralded and obscure teachers out there but unfortunately, only the lunatics make the news. Whether the Cornell provost was truly courageous remains a question. The congressional hearing last year that stirred all this up in the first place lingers on as a threat to all college administrators who look to take the part of their anarchist students and faculty over the bedrock principle of free speech. Endowments rest on happy alumni and happy alumni do not drink Bud Light! Let those who teach be taught this.
Here’s the thing, If Monica Cornejo was so incensed by Coulter, then were is the Rebuttal?
Cornejo could have written an Editorial and the school paper or press could have carried the Opinion piece.
But instead what we see it the Easy-Way-Out, show up to the event and make a rant screen, then exit.
(i.e.: She’s Lazy)
There is no ‘Substance’ with this method, and the fact is it received a lot less circulation than a published piece (efficacy),
particularly if the Author wishes to convey the meaning of the piece, rather than producing a Glance & Swipe on Tik-Tok piece.
I do think that these protesters have a ‘statement’ to make, however They are not providing ‘substance’ in their effort (or more like effortless attempts).
After seeing the video, can you tell me what Cornejo was defending? – I can’t tell what it is.
I do think that these protesters have a ‘statement’ to make
If only the person the college hired to teach students how to do that, is an emotional infant, that reverts to temper tantrums, because she doesn’t know how to use her adult words.
What did you expect? She is a Communications professor!
Where’s the beef?
“Communications Professor!” LOL
(Disclaimer: This comment is NOT affiliated with Wendy’s Corporation)
How pathetic you refer to the Cornell president as courageous. Defending free speech is now courageous?
If the faculty member feels that she must resort to physical restraint, she must realize that she cannot win a discussion on the merits. How is she to teach others if she cannot form a cogent defense of her beliefs and if she cannot bear to listen to beliefs that differ from her own?
One has to give some credit to the Provost. Plenty of questions though, foremost being why is that person even on the faculty?
-whig98 “Plenty of questions though, foremost being why is that person even on the faculty?”
Very Good question for the Cornell ‘s HR & EDI Department.
Another is, What is a “one of the first undocumented tenure-track faculty members at Cornell.” faculty members at Cornell”?
I’m having trouble with “undocumented tenure-track”. I have worked years and years on a Chain Gang. Am I on an “undocumented tenure-track”?
It is sad that free speech is considered controversial and it is courageous to stand up for it.