Cornell Blog: An unofficial blog about Cornell University

According to Students Want Cornell Name Out of Review Title, a number of Cornell University students are upset because of an article published by the almost defunct The Cornell Review, a conservative anti-establishment tabloid publication. The article, What to Expect: The Angry Minority, allegedly contained racially insensitive speech. It’s hard to say whether the speech was indeed racist, as the article has disappeared from the Internet, and offended parties have not produced hardcopy. Another Cornell magazine, Kitsch, has quoted some of it (via indirect citation) in one of their blog posts:

“…it’s impossible to ignore the nasty, ignorant, and bitter members of the minority community who constantly whine about the brutal oppression they suffer at the hands of whitey. Apparently, part of this oppression involves their admittance to an Ivy League institution, likely as a recipient of affirmative action and scholarships.”

Sample 1 of racist speech

“These reapers of racial rage seclude themselves inside their ethnic ghettos (be it [program houses] Ujamaa, Latino Living Center, or Akwe;kon.”

Sample 2 of racist speech

This would be just another matter of one group of students annoyed with another group of student if not for statements from the Cornell University administration, such as this juicy one from Dean of Students Kent Hubble:

“The Review’s journalism, if one dignifies it with that term, creates a climate of intimidation and alienation among the groups that it targets. Must we tolerate this behavior in order to uphold our commitment to free speech and freedom of expression? I would hope not.”

Don’t think that Cornell won’t ask them to change their name–after all, this blog received a cease and desist for including Cornell in its name after publishing unpopular, but well-reasoned (I’d like to think) articles. Unfortunately, whether you agree with it or not, the article in the Cornell Review is protected free speech. And, its use of the Cornell name is clearly within fair-use.

My suggestion that Cornell University isn’t doing enough to fight the RIAA was met with criticism and accusations of trolling; apparently the idea that Universities shouldn’t have to attack their own students is a foreign concept to my readers. So, in stark contract to Cornell let’s take a look at the University of Oregon’s motion to quash an RIAA subpoena:

In Arista v. Does 1-17, a new ex parte case to get discovery from the University of Oregon about the identities of its students, the Oregon Department of Justice has made a motion, on behalf of the University of Oregon, to quash the subpoena obtained by the RIAA. This is the first such motion of which we are aware that has been made by the university itself, rather than by the students. It is also the first instance of which we are aware of a State Attorney General bringing a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena.

The University is represented by the Oregon Attorney General who argues lucidly that the RIAA doesn’t have sufficient evidence to be throwing subpoenas around:

Plaintiffs’ subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ subpoena is additionally invalid because Congress intended Plaintiffs to use the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the information they seek, not Rule 45. Lastly, the University should be allowed access to Plaintiffs through interrogatories and depositions to determine whether Plaintiffs have additional information with which to identify
Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ subpoena should be quashed.

Here’s a link to MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45 B(3)(A) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45B(3)(A) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON. Note that this is the course of action I advised Cornell to follow in my last RIAA post

It’s not hard to imagine how an article I’ve written could land me in the territory of having enemies I’ve never met. While I respect those who take different ideological positions than I do, it’s hard to understand readers who react violently, emotionally, or criminally.

Towards the end of last semester I received a number of:

• Opt-in spam emails indicating that I had signed up for them
• Telephone marketing calls indicating that I had asked for more information about their products

In other words, someone was using my public status to create havoc in my well-ordered online life. I don’t like persistent telemarketers or spam. I don’t like receiving email newsletters with a misspelled version of my name.

Fortunately, one of the many spam emails I received included the IP address and the time at which the individual abused my identity. The moral of the story is that electronic intimidation, no matter how anonymous and safe you think it is, can be traced back to you.

It’s also a cowardly and childish way for you express your opinions. The person who did this is a Cornell student, but never left a comment on this blog, and never sent me an email. If you’re attending an Ivy-League institution, you should have the good sense to deal with a difference of opinion through open debate, not illegal harassment.