Even with the motto “any person, any study”, Cornell has historically ranked as the least diverse university among the Ivies. In 2007, there was a 37.6% enrollment of minorities with 5.1% blacks, 0.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 16.5% Asian or Pacific Islander and 5.5% Hispanic.

Fifty-thousand dollars. That sum of money could not pay for four years of tuition alone at Cornell University, and an individual person donating that much could not even get half of a classroom named in his honor. It is enough money though, to cause some people to raise a fuss when the Veritas Fund for Higher Education donates it for the promotion of intellectual diversity.

Basically, intellectual diversity is the novel concept that one should understand a diverse variety of viewpoints. That’s hardly a radical or conservative notion. When someone does not have an intellectually diverse viewpoint, you can often tell by some of the silly arguments they make.

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 issues that minority students face at Cornell transcend the racism of articles by The Cornell Review, whether people have the right of free speech and expression, and the feelings of conservatives that they have no voice on this campus.

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?