Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Student Government Officials at Cornell Reportedly Threatened for Voting Against Disarming Police

Student Government Officials at Cornell Reportedly Threatened for Voting Against Disarming Police

“I will beat your a—, please put your address in the chat”

We have gotten to the point where people on the left are comfortable using threats and intimidation. Where do they think this will end?

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Cornell Activists Threaten Peers Who Voted Against Disarming the Police

Cornell University activists are threatening student government representatives who voted against disarming the campus police.

On Nov. 19, Cornell’s student government voted by a 15-14 margin not to disarm the campus police. Following the failed resolution, activists took to social media to harass and threaten the representatives who opposed the bill. After a member of the student government posted the full names of each opponent in a group text for students of color, activists plastered the list on Instagram and Twitter, resulting in an onslaught of threats.

Joe Anderson, a former student government president, called on his peers to fight the representatives who rejected disarming the police. “And when I say fight, literally fight them, I can’t stand those ugly people,” Anderson said.

Another student, who goes by the Twitter name “Youssanta claus,” said he wanted to beat up a non-voting member of the student government, but was unable to identify him because “all these white men looked the same.”

The member in question, Zion Sherin, faced a torrent of abuse in an online student government meeting following the vote, a video of which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “Zion I will beat your a—, please put your address in the chat,” one student yelled. “Suck my a—,” another said.

Language warning for this video:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

And the school keeps calling for donations.

    I’ve been able to get the schools (Michigan and Cornell) to stop calling for donations, but they have switched to blast email requests. Of course, these requests are usually disguised as information newsletters, but the ask usually comes in at some point.

    But, these newsletters with all their social justice articles just reinforce my decision not to donate to the schools.

There are laws against threatening people and more laws against following through. If these people are right to have no fear of the law being enforced THAT is a big part of the problem.

There are a few key facts that everyone must know to put this into context:

1)These same students have been demanding changes to the Cornell Campus Code of Conduct and judicial system to lower the standard of evidence from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of the evidence.”

2) These same students are advocating a much broader definition of “hazing” and “harassment” so as to include off-campus “hate speech.”

3) When the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly was about to adopt a resolution criticizing the unfair procedures in the new code, theses students went to the GPSA meeting to berate that Zoom meeting on the grounds that since most of the students prosecuted under the code are undergraduates, the graduate students should not advocate for fairness.

4) The key aspect of the meeting was a group of students invited the Chief of the Cornell Police to join the meeting. He answered their questions and arguments with great dignity, and the unexpected loss of the vote then followed. The meeting dragged on for three hours.

NYS Section 240.26
Harassment in the second degree
Penal (PEN)

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when:

1. With intent to harass another person, the actor either:

(a) communicates, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by computer or any other electronic means, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of communication, a threat to cause physical harm to, or unlawful harm to the property of, such person, or a member of such person’s same family or household as defined in subdivision one of section 530.11 of the criminal procedure law, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that such communication will cause such person to reasonably fear harm to such person’s physical safety or property, or to the physical safety or property of a member of such person’s same family or household; or

(b) causes a communication to be initiated anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by computer or any other electronic means, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of communication, a threat to cause physical harm to, or unlawful harm to the property of, such person, a member of such person’s same family or household as defined in subdivision one of section 530.11 of the criminal procedure law, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that such communication will cause such person to reasonably fear harm to such person’s physical safety or property, or to the physical safety or property of a member of such person’s same family or household; or

2. With intent to harass or threaten another person, he or she makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or

3. With the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or

4. With the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact thereby causing physical injury to such person or to a family or household member of such person as defined in section 530.11 of the criminal procedure law; or

5. He or she commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
SECTION 240.26
Harassment In The Second Degree

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 25, 2020 at 11:58 am

This is a fake. It was students are liars.

I think Cornell students need to pay more attention to student government elections. What I saw on that video, with the aggression and the harassment, was not good.

Cornell has significantly lowered their standards. Don’t give a dime to them. It is a level of incompetence they were even admitted to the school.Cornell activists can threaten and intimidate only in numbers. Individually they are genuine cowards who don’t want to work and thrive on complaining. Total losers. Great job to those who challenged them. Don’t ever let up in being yourself. Stay strong.

    artichoke in reply to ajcbjl. | November 26, 2020 at 2:27 pm

    Diversity admits often turn negative after a year or two. The school is very difficult for them and it doesn’t let up, and so they switch to arguments where they can feel success, they grab for a life raft.

    In lifeguard training, we were taught consistently that the most important thing is to ensure the victim can’t drag you down while you’re trying to save them. The various holds they taught (cross-chest, hair, etc.) are designed that way. Now the lifeguard is supposed to carry a foam noodle so the victim doesn’t even get close to them, just grabs onto the other end of the noodle.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend