Columbia’s Political Review Joins Attack on Students for Expressing Views of Cornell Rape Case

I recently wrote a column on the cancellation of a free press event at Columbia University where student journalists had the temerity to offer their own views on the coverage of the alleged Cornell rape case. Now other “student journalists” are joining the outcry for action after the column’s publication. The Columbia Political Review joined the mob to denounce the authors and the Sundial staff for an essay that “perpetuates a culture of campus violence, rape, and assault.” As depressing as this latest example of viewpoint intolerance is in higher education, there is one redeeming element. The staff editor of the Sundial, Shoshana Aufzien, wrote a magnificent reply to these critics that gives some of us hope that there remain young journalists who understand the essence of free speech.

The Columbia controversy follows a familiar pattern. In my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I detail the collapse of free speech and journalistic values in higher education. Student writers are regularly canceled or denounced for expressing opposing views on major stories. The culture of orthodoxy and intolerance in higher education is stifling as groupthink replaces diverse viewpoints on our campuses.

One of the most commendable aspects of the Sundial column is that Aufzien disagreed with it, particularly the notion that “Jane Doe was responsible for the predicament in which she found herself.” However, she then offered a robust and powerful defense of the right and value of Sundial publishing opposing views of this kind. Notably, this essay was part of a set of opposing essays on the controversy, the very thing the canceled event was supposed to advance.

Aufzien quotes postings on the Columbia Confessions Instagram account stating, “Shame on all of you. I can only hope that you might one day mature enough to understand the effect of your words.” She responds:

“I don’t have to imagine. As a “Jane Doe” myself, Christina and Nikos’ essay provoked immense frustration and rage. Anyone who finds this subject too painful to read about has every right to refrain from doing so, and I would never think less of them for it. But that is a personal choice, not a license to decide for others.”

For its part, the Political Review called on Sundial “to formally re-evaluate their publishing guidelines and their commitment to public safety and publish a response detailing the formal decision-making process that allowed for this article to be released.” It denounced the essay as lacking any sources or basic editorial standards.

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.”

The Political Review’s editors deserved the drumming at the hands of Aufzien. When the values of free speech and journalism were under attack, the editors joined the mob in adopting the popular rather than the principled position.

In contrast, Aufzien and the staff of the Sundial have given Columbia a true profile of courage. Well done, Sundial.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”