By Tia Hicks and Zachary Murray The discussion has shifted and now we’re talking about “intellectual diversity.” We’re talking about providing “robust discussion” instead of preventing bigotry; we’re talking about the politics of diversity instead of outlining concrete efforts to achieve diversity and equality; we’re talking about how the University can protect itself from being criticized instead of responding to groups that alienate and denigrate. The problem with Americans is that we talk about race. We do not engage in conversations about racism. In fact, we avoid it altogether.

My column today was motivated by a current controversy on our campus and by the larger issues it represents. Articles in the Cornell Review’s orientation issue have once again put issues of civility, diversity, and free speech squarely before our campus community and the greater Cornell family. The views as expressed in the Review articles — one focused on minority students and one satirically linking Muslims to terrorism — were clearly at odds with the values of our university. The current controversy raises three broad issues: 1. How should we as a campus respond to writings and other forms of speech that target certain groups within our campus community in ways that many find offensive? 2. How can we foster a robust discussion and civil debate of contentious issues in ways that are respectful of political and intellectual diversity? 3. When it comes to hurtful or hateful speech, is there a certain line that we as a university won’t let people cross?