Pro-Palestine protesters must have free speech, too

Does Cornell University have a problem with free speech? It certainly looks that way after news emerged last month that one of its students, a 30-year-old British national called Momodou Taal, could be deported effectively for expressing pro-Palestine views.

Taal is in the third year of a doctorate in Africana studies and currently teaches a seminar titled, ‘What is Blackness? Race and Processes of Racialisation’. In spring this year, he participated in the pro-Palestinian protests taking place all over US university campuses. Alongside three other students, he was temporarily suspended for participating in a student encampment on Cornell campus property. No further action was taken at the time, but Taal’s campaigning did not stop.

On 18 September, Taal joined fellow students in a protest at a Human Capital and HR Career Fair. The career fair featured Boeing and L3Harris, two defence contractors and manufacturers that provide weapons to the Israeli military. A group of students attempted to shut down the event, with Cornell alleging that these students ‘displayed highly disruptive and intentionally menacing behaviour’ – a characterisation rejected by journalists at the student newspaper, the Cornell Sun. Cornell proceeded to suspend Taal for a second time for his involvement in the protest.

Taal has challenged the university’s account. He says he was inside the venue for about five minutes and left before the attempts to shut it down took place. He claims that he was singled out by campus police because of his previous campaigning efforts. In a report that led to his suspension, the university police complained that Taal ‘intentionally led or repeated chants that were unreasonably loud resulting in the significant disruption of university activities’, and that he refused to back away from a door at the entrance of the venue. Perhaps he was sailing close to the wind, but chanting ‘unreasonably loudly’ hardly sounds like a heinous offence.

The consequences of Cornell’s suspension of Taal are severe. It means he will lose his F-1 student-visa status, which requires holders to be enrolled as full-time students. As a result, he now faces deportation. Cornell told Taal that, following his suspension, he ‘should leave either before the end date of your F-1 record or right away after the record is closed’ and that he would be given ‘no grace period’ for his departure.

Given the conflicting reports over what transpired at the career fair, there should at least be a thorough investigation – especially given that Taal claims that he was not present during the disruption that took place inside the venue. But it seems that Cornell is not interested in investigating what actually happened. Instead, it has expedited the process of his suspension, without any semblance of due process. This was despite the severe consequences this will have for an international student like Taal.

And all because he is accused of chanting too loudly? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Taal is being targeted because of his pro-Palestine views. Regardless of your position on the war in the Middle East, Taal’s freedom of speech should be defended at all costs.

He has received support from notable public figures in the US, including Senator Bernie Sanders. In a social-media post urging Cornell ‘to reverse course immediately’, Sanders drew attention to the injustice of Taal’s predicament: ‘It is appalling that Cornell University appears ready to deport an international student without regard for due process, simply because of [his] presence at a protest.’

But there has been an eerie silence from free-speech campaigners in the UK. Why? Momodou Taal is a British international student facing termination of his graduate studies and deportation from the US, and all because he expressed himself.

Taal’s plight shows the need to defend free speech for all, including those expressing pro-Palestine views. We have seen this reluctance to stick up for pro-Palestinian protesters’ free speech in the UK before. Think of the case of Marieha Hussain, a teacher charged with a racially aggravated public-order offence for carrying a placard depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as ‘coconuts’ during a pro-Palestinian march in November. Calling someone a ‘coconut’ is offensive, but it is neither violent nor threatening. Yet Hussain was still dragged through the courts for almost a year with little support from those who normally champion free speech. She was eventually cleared last month.

If free-speech advocates truly believe in the right to free speech, then they need to defend it for those they vehemently disagree with. Free speech is for all, or it’s not free speech at all.

Raquel Rosario Sanchez is a writer, campaigner and researcher from the Dominican Republic.