The disciplines for modern knowledge production on human nature – generally referred to as the Humanities or human sciences - have been accommodated within the historically-specific bi-polar structure that consists of two orientations. Subsumed under the first orientation are the group of normative sciences without geopolitical modifiers, disciplinary forms of knowledge production, such as psychology and philosophy, on what has been regarded as humanitas or human beings in general. Subsumed under the second are particular disciplines of knowledge production on what have been seen as anthropos or human beings in their specificity, whose particularity is marked by geopolitical adjectivals such as Indian and Chinese in Indian and Chinese philosophies. It is widely believed that those names of normative sciences without modifiers have been handed over from the European tradition, and that they developed as the disciplinary forms of knowledge, as universities transformed themselves into modern educational and disciplinary institutions for modern territorial and national sovereignties within Europe. The assumed universality of humanitas and its normative status have been endorsed within the framework of the modern national state. In contrast, human sciences for anthropos have dealt with human natures in their regional, cultural, or historical specificities, and with exotic knowledge as Europe expanded and came across strange peoples and places. In other words, the humanistic sciences on anthropos are supposed to cover Europe’s encounter with its others, with the rest of the world. To the extent that Europe assumes the position of centrality, European humanity serves as the standard for knowledge production, as the norm for the Humanities. It has been assumed, therefore, that human sciences on humanitas must be given a normative status and their knowledge be deployed in the modality of universality, whereas human (and social) sciences on anthropos must be given a derivative status with their knowledge in the modality of particularity.

These two distinct orientations in humanistic knowledge have been based upon the presumed anthropological difference, thanks to which one unique type of life attitude – that has been characterized as the spiritual shape of European or Western humanity – is distinguished from the other types to be found in the remaining the global humanities.

In the Flying University of Transnational Humanities to be held at Cornell University in 2016, the main subject-matter we propose to address is primarily not this bipolar-structure of humanistic knowledge. In the last several decades, the Eurocentric structure of humanistic knowledge has been exposed and critiqued in a number of academic accomplishments. We do not plan to launch another round of such critique. Instead, relying on the consequences of such expositions, we are concerned with why such a structure of knowledge based upon anthropological difference remains largely intact in the disciplinary configuration of the Humanities even today, as well as what sorts of attempts can be encouraged and cultivated to undermine the bipolarity of the Humanities.

For this reason, as the central themes for the 2016 Flying University of Transnational Humanities, we have decided to adopt the future of the Humanities and the changing status of area studies in the Humanities and social sciences at universities and higher education in general in the world.

Area studies is an interdisciplinary arrangement in which both normative human sciences and regional and local knowledge were mobilized to produce knowledge on areas. Unlike the notion of territory, which is closely affiliated with population and state sovereignty in the modern international world, the area is essentially an apparatus by which to capture, regulate, manage, and reign a region or populace that is a remote or exotic object of concern. Unlike territory that defines the extent of sovereignty for the sovereign state in the system of international law, therefore, area is a colonial apparatus, an extension of the imperial governmentality beyond the land space of territorial national state sovereignty. This is one reason why, despite repeated attempts, area studies has been applied only to regions outside the north Atlantic – sometimes called the West - in this case, namely, Western Europe and North America.

In this respect, area is a notion specific to the post WWII world of Pax Americana that retains colonial governmentality under erasure and also reflects a new synthesis of the principle of territoriality and colonial governmentality. However, it is important to keep in mind that the principle of territoriality, which represents the integral unity of the nation-state sovereignty, is not totally discarded. Consequently the national disciplines organized under the general rule of territoriality – national history, national literature and so forth – in countries of the Rest are in a peculiar complicity with the disciplines of area studies in the United States.

Since the 18th century, some notable disciplines such as national history, national literature and historical linguistics have been constituted in order to cultivate national subjectivity for nation-states. These disciplines have indeed been framed within the notion of national territory. In the formation of the state and its subject population, each of the nation-states tried to create its national history, literature, language, and so forth even though the development of these institutions did not necessarily follow the same chronology.

Accompanying the formation of the territorial national state sovereignty was the invention of the national language as the basic medium in which academic conversation was conducted. The core project in the production of national subjectivity has been the formation of national translation. Prior to the establishment of modern human sciences, academic knowledge was expressed and conserved in such classical languages as Latin, Sanskrit, Arabic, and Classical Chinese, each of which was independent of a particular nation, ethnicity, or national territory. Of course, local languages were often used in pedagogy, correspondence and debates in academia, but the authorized form of academic knowledge was most often sought in those universal, cosmopolitan languages, which were seen as the exclusive media for the Truth. And knowledge not expressed in these universal languages was rarely granted the status of authentic and eternal verity.

From the outset of the Reformation in Western Europe, however, the relationship between the classical universal languages and the local particular ones has undergone radical changes. What we refer to as “the modern regime of translation” played the decisive role in forming the new configuration of national languages, on which the development of human sciences has been dependent. In the eighteenth century, a new type of state sovereignty – territorial national sovereignty – emerged in North America and Western Europe, and a new style of polity, nation-state, and an equally new kind of community, the nation, came into existence. Modern universities were indeed conditioned by the results of these historical vicissitudes, and modern human sciences or the disciplines of the Humanities have been involved in the task of producing national subjectivity in accordance with national languages. In order to understand the Humanities as a historical trajectory, therefore, it is impossible to overlook the significant role played by the modern regime of translation.

Accompanying the formation of the nation-state and the national community was the emergence of the international world. The notion of the international world was closely associated with the system of international law, generally referred to as the Jus Publicum Europœum; in the early phases of modernity it did not mean the comity of the states covering the entire earth as it does today. The international world meant the part of the world in which the territorial sovereign states ruled, and, in due course, the rest of the world that did not accept the system of international law was excluded from the international world. Consequently the disciplinary configuration in the Humanities reflects this political reality of the modern world and has developed within the institutional framework that, in recent decades, has been referred to as “the West and the Rest” and as the distinction implied above of Humanitas from Anthropos. While knowledge production in the Humanities has been legitimated by a universalistic search for human nature in every historical era and every location on the planet earth, the disciplines of human sciences have been organized according to a historically-specific economy of generality and particularity for more than two centuries.

The community, “nation,” is an entirely new social formation, in which the principle of kinship affiliation has played only a restricted role in creating the sense of individual identity. The nation introduced an entirely different form of individual identification and camaraderie, and a strict distinction of insiders from outsiders of the national community of sympathy. The nation is unprecedented as a social formation because what constitutes the bonds of collective attachment among its members is an aesthetic construct, described as “the sentiment of nationality” by British Liberalism. Corresponding to this sentiment of nationality is the idea of the national language, which supposedly inheres in every native member of the nation, and is imminent in the feeling of its collective identity. Nationalism holds that the national language can be traced back to a prehistoric origin. But, of course, this is a fiction that helps sustain the reality of the nation as a fictive ethnicity.

Despite the myth of its origin, however, the national language itself is always a product of internationality, of a comparative procedure by which one language is posited as external to another. It does not derive from the past of the remote origin. Rather it is constituted in relation to another language, through what Naoki Sakai has elsewhere called the schematism of co-figuration. All the modern national languages, English, German, French, Japanese, Chinese, and so on were formed through the modern regime of translation at the demise of the authority associated with classical universal languages. Ever since the birth of the modern university in the eighteenth century in Europe, the disciplines in the Humanities have been organized with a view to the production of national subjectivity, as what Jon Solomon called “the subjective technology of national translation.”

In an ambiguous relationship with these national disciplines, the disciplines of area studies were constituted under the principle of interdisciplinarity. This interdisciplinary formation of area studies presupposes the putative object of their inquiry quite differently from the normative human science, whose object presumably is one aspect or another of universal human nature. What binds the disparate disciplines, literature, economic, sociology, history, linguistics, religious studies, ethnography and so on in area studies is not one or another aspect of human nature but the region or people of an area. Subsumed under Chinese Studies as an area studies are Chinese literature, sociology of rural development in China, historical linguistics of Chinese languages, history of Chinese polities and thought, and legal studies of Chinese law and so forth, none of which shares common epistemic objects with other disciplines of the same area studies except for the very area, China, and its people.
Area studies follows a different grammar, so to say, in terms of which the object of its inquiry is differently organized from the normative sciences in the Humanities. As has been suggested above, this ambiguous distinction between normative human sciences and area studies boils down to the difference between humanitas and anthropos.

Let us apprehend this principle of a binary configuration as pertinent to one type of what Étienne Balibar called anthropological difference, the distinction of one kind of humanity from the rest, in terms of which knowledge in the Humanities has been produced, organized and justified in order for the rules of academic conduct, the protocols of research, the methods of teaching, and the significance of attained truths to be institutionalized with respect to the positionalities of researchers, audiences, academic managers such as faculty members, apprentices or students, university administrators and staff, and so forth. In short, anthropological difference is a matter of power that has sustained the production of knowledge in the Humanities.

But, it is also important to note that anthropological difference pertains not only to the difference between humanitas and anthropos but also differences in animality (human vs animal) and intelligence (human vs machine). Of course, it also pertains to the difference in gender (male vs female, and heterosexual normalcy vs gender heterogeneity).

Today it is only too obvious that the legacies of the Cold War in the historical formation of area studies must be discarded. Furthermore, the disciplines of the Humanities in higher education are in turmoil not only in the United States but also everywhere, including Western Europe and East Asia, in the world. Regardless of whether or not one agrees, there is no denying that the Humanities are in transformation. Responding to this contemporary situation facing the Humanities today, therefore, we propose to hold the Flying University of Transnational Humanities on the theme of anthropological difference and the end of area studies, in which the institutional framework of “the West and the Rest” and of the opposition of humanitas and anthropos is discussed. It is important to note, however, that one aspect of anthropological difference is to be focused on in isolation of other aspects of it: differences in animality (human vs animal) and intelligence (human vs machine). Of course, it also pertains to the difference in gender (male vs female, and heterosexual normalcy vs gender heterogeneity). We propose that the general issues of anthropological difference and area studies be discussed with respect to the following topics:

1) We must call into question “the modern regime of translation” as well as the consequences brought about by this regime that are institutionalized in the disciplines of the Humanities. We must pursue how the new image of translation transformed knowledge about human nature; and how the transformation of our images of translation would affect the modes of knowledge production in the Humanities.

2) How can the distinction of the general human sciences from area studies still be maintained? For example, Indian or Chinese philosophy is most often taught in area studies programs and is excluded from philosophy-proper. Then, how should we deal with philosophical debates discussed in translation, in non-European languages, which refer to modern European or American philosophy, and in other disciplines, anthropology, sociology, art criticism, media studies, and gender studies?

3) The two binary oppositions, “the West and the Rest,” and “humanitas and anthropos,” are premised upon the unity of the West and “the shape of the European spirit” (humanitas according to Edmund Husserl). Unless the unity of the West is presumed, these binary oppositions cannot sustain its conceptual coherence. Then, how can the unity of the West be possible? How was it historically constituted? On what grounds can these “Western” national philosophies be distinguished from “non-Western” national philosophies such as these of Brazil and Japan?

4) What roles does anthropological difference play in the production of local knowledge in national histories and cultural studies in the West as well as the Rest? How do human and social sciences contribute to either the transformation or consolidation of anthropological difference? How is the reference to the West indispensable in the formation of cultural nationalism in national histories in non-Western countries? And, perhaps the most immediate concern for those engaged in university education, and one we cannot evade is the following: What roles does curriculum in the Humanities and social sciences in undergraduate and graduate education play in the conservation of anthropological difference?

5) How do demographic changes in area studies affect the positionality of the area expert? For instance, in the early phases of area studies – prior to the 1980’s - virtually no or only a few indigenous scholars or students were present in the classrooms for area studies courses at American universities. An area and its inhabitants were distant objects with which area experts assumed no or little personal relations. Most often the very few students from the object area who happened to be present there were treated largely as “native informants.” Today a sizable portion, or sometimes the majority, of such a class consists of students from the object area or who are ethnically related to it. Clearly this is closely related to the issue of diversity, whose importance the university community cannot afford to ignore.

6) In the global processes of capitalist commodification known as globalization or imperialism (distinct from pre-modern imperialism), commodity exchange nullifies existing differences of rank and status and gives rise to a homogeneous space of a market, while generating wide schisms in wealth and cultural capital. How can the binary oppositions of the West and the Rest and of humanitas and anthropos still be maintained unless in terms of the individual accumulation of cultural capital, rather than in terms of race, ethnicity or civilizational background? Or, are these oppositions losing their efficacy today? Are they transforming themselves, so that the West operates in different registers? How are these factors redefining our perception of diversity on the university campus today?

7) In order to assess the future of the Humanities, one aspect of anthropological difference – humanitas vs anthropos – cannot be focused on in isolation from its other aspects. Already this has been discussed in the studies of racism and postcoloniality in relation to difference in gender with respect to the differential dynamics not only of the male and the female, but also of heterosexual normalcy and gender polivalency. It must now be articulated to differences in animality (human vs animal) and intelligence (human vs machine). How can the disciplines of the Humanities possibly transform themselves so as to accommodate these diverse aspects of anthropological difference?

8) In view of the anticipated end of the old disciplinary formation of area studies, what are their purposes still worth preserving? How should we transform area studies so as to rejuvenate the intellectual productivity and critical relevance of the Humanities to current global situations? Or should we abolish the Humanities and replace them with an entirely new disciplinary formation?

The Flying University of Transnational Humanities at Cornell will be held on the Ithaca campus of Cornell University from the 10 through the 14th of 2016.

Call for Papers:
“The Future of the Humanities and Anthropological Difference: Beyond the Modern Regime of Translation” July 2016

The Cornell East Asia Program (EAP), in collaboration with the Flying University of Transnational Humanities (FUTH) [a consortium of universities: Hanyang University (South Korea), University of Leipzig (Germany), University of Pittsburgh (USA), St. Andrews University (UK), University of Tampere (Finland), National Chiao Tung University (Taiwan), Sogang University (South Korea)], the Collège International de Philosophie, and L’École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) invites paper proposals for presentation and participation at its July 10-14, 2016 workshop “the Future of the humanities and Anthropological Difference: Beyond the Modern Regime of Translation.” The workshop will take place on the Cornell University campus in Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.
This workshop will feature small group seminars led by leading translation studies thinkers as well as daily keynote lectures and roundtables for all participants. Participants are expected to give one 20-30 minute paper on their work, critique the papers of their fellow seminar participants, and to contribute to the general dialogue of the workshop.
Applications from graduate students and junior scholars in all disciplines are particularly welcome. There are a limited number of grants to assist travel and lodging for the workshop. Prospective participants should apply online at https://cornell.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3ITpSpCDaUDf2CN with proposals that include a title, a 500word abstract, a short (2page) CV, and names and email of two referees. Proposals should address problematics of translation and the institutional conditions of humanistic knowledge in their field of work, and should reference any links between the proposal and broader global, historical, and especially interdisciplinary approaches and questions. Those admitted will be notified at the beginning of April.

Application deadline is March 31, 2016.

Questions can be addressed to the East Asia Program at cueap@cornell.edu.
Hosted by Naoki Sakai (Cornell University, USA), the workshop will address problematics of the role of the regime of translation in the knowledge production that founds work in the humanities and the social sciences. The practice and the theory of translation has been a mainstay for work in area studies. What roles does translation play in the changing status of area studies? The workshop will feature a keynote talk by Boris Buden (Bauhaus University, Weimar, Germany), as well as three multi-day seminars to be led by Joyce C.H. Liu (National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan), Jon Solomon (Jean-Moulin Lyon-3 University, France), and Rada Ivekovic (Collège International de Philosophie, Paris, France). Each seminar leader will also give a talk to all workshop participants. See below for the seminar topics.
The disciplines for modern knowledge production on human nature – generally referred to as the Humanities or human sciences - have been accommodated within the historically-specific bi-polar structure that consists of two orientations. The first, normative sciences without geopolitical modifiers, disciplinary forms of knowledge production on what has been regarded as humanitas or human beings in general. The second, particular disciplines of knowledge production on what have been seen as anthropos or human beings in their specificity, whose particularity is marked by geopolitical adjectivals. The interdisciplinary formation of area studies presupposes the putative object of their inquiry quite differently from the normative human science, whose object presumably is one aspect or another of universal human nature. In the last several decades, the Eurocentric structure of humanistic knowledge has been exposed and critiqued in a number of academic accomplishments. Relying on the consequences of such expositions, we are concerned with why such a structure remains largely intact in the disciplinary configuration of the Humanities even today, and also what sorts of attempts can be encouraged and cultivated to undermine the bipolarity of the Humanities. For this reason, as the central theme for this workshop, we have decided to adopt the changing status of area studies in the Humanities and social sciences at American universities as well as in higher education in the rest of the world.

Seminars and Seminar Leaders
劉紀蕙 | Joyce C.H. Liu – (Professor, Graduate Institute for Social Research and Cultural Studies, National Chiao Tung University, and Director, International Institute for Cultural Studies, University System of Taiwan)
“Apparatus of Area Partitions in the Waves of Globalization: The Location of Taiwan—the Aporia and its Exit”
The purpose of this seminar is to examine the politico-economic apparatus of area partitions in different waves of globalization, particularly during and after the Second World War and in the post-cold war neoliberal era. The location of Taiwan jammed between the two empires, China versus US-Japan, exposes the paradox of area studies in relation to east Asia. This seminar will engage with the above-mentioned problematics both historically and theoretically. I will introduce the theoretical formulation of guojia (nation) by the Chinese philosopher Zhang Taiyan (1869-1936) in dialogue with Giorgio Agamben’s concept of paradigmatic ontology as well as Alain Badiou’s concept of topology in order to think the question of the poros (passage, exit) in the aporia of the apparatus of area partitions.

Bio - Dr. Liu’s research covers psychoanalysis, critical theories, classical Chinese philosophy, East-Asian modernity and inter-art studies. Her courses deal with issues related with politics, aesthetics and ethics, including readings of Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Lacan, Bataille, Derrida, Althusser, Foucault, Rancière, Balibar, Badiou, and Agamben. She has published five books, more than 70 journal and book articles, edited 13 books, and translated 2 theoretical books.
Professor Liu received her Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1984, and is Professor of Critical Theory, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature in the Institute of Social Research and Cultural Studies, Chiao Tung University, Taiwan. She is currently the Chair of the Institute of Social Research and Cultural Studies that she founded in 2002. She is also the director of the International Institute for Cultural Studies of the University System of Taiwan, a network system connecting four distinguished research-oriented universities in Taiwan, including National Chiao Tung University, National Tsing-Hua University, National Central University and National Yang Ming University. She serves as the chief editor of the only journal of cultural studies in Taiwan, Routers: A Journal of Cultural Studies, since 2011.

Jon Solomon (Institute of Transtextual and Transcultural Studies, Université Jean Moulin, Lyon, France)
“Translation, Colonial Difference and the Neoliberal University”
The regime of translation is a key component of the apparatus of area that organizes both social relations and knowledge since the colonial-imperial modernity. This seminar will explore the ways in which the apparatus of area has been challenged and appropriated by the neoliberal restructuring of the university around the principles of New Public Management. The relations among translation, logistics, and postcolonial/postimperial population management will be considered with an eye to imagining non-colonial, non-capitalist organizational forms of knowledge and population.

Bio - Born in the United States and trained at Cornell University, Jon Solomon has lived in East Asia for 25 years, North America for 23, and Western Europe for 2. He is competent in Chinese, French, English and Japanese, and holds a permanent position as Professeur des universités at Université Jean Moulin, Lyon, France. He is a practitioner in the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, enjoys the hobbies of backpacking, rangefinder photography, and the community of indie music in Taiwan.
His on-going intellectual project brings the theme of translation into the discussion about biopolitics as a privileged place for understanding and transforming the relations between anthropological difference and capitalist accumulation.

Rada Ivekovic (Collège international de philosophie, Paris, France)
"Theory and practice in translation and the partitioning of reason"
The seminar will discuss the relation and the split between "theory" and "practice" as a rupture which, if unreflected, is usually inbuilt in reasoning as such. This split [in reason] (in French: partage de la raison) needs to be overcome if we are to avoid the limitations of dichotomies that reproduce hierarchies and domination in politics and social relations as well as in cognitive relations, and that work through an imposed (and, more rarely, a negotiated) hegemony. By (established) cognitive relations we refer to the existing hierarchies in dominant and subordinate types of knowledge, which bear on culture and politics in general, but also on cognitive injustice and inequality at universities, or between university and other types of knowledge usually dismissed as “unscientific” or “indigenous”, or as women’s knowledge etc. From the point of view of dominant and hegemonic knowledges that are connected with power, how could those that are studied as “cases”, “examples”, “specimen”, rise to represent universality since universality too is linked to power? "Practice and theory" as a binary are a perfect trap in translation as well as in thinking in general.

Bio - Former programme director at the Collège international de philosophie (2004-2010), Paris, philosopher, indologist, writer, she was born in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, in 1945. She taught at the Philosophy department of Zagreb University, then at universities in France (Paris-7; Paris-8 Saint-Denis; Saint-Etienne), and was visiting professor at many other universities in different countries. She published books in different languages concerning philosophy in general (Indian or comparative, though not exclusively, and including some translations from Sanskrit or Pali, textbooks, essays), political philosophy, feminist philosophy, (literary) criticism, essays.

Keynote Lectures
Boris Buden – the possibilities of translation
Boris Buden received his Ph.D. in cultural theory from Humboldt University in Berlin. In the 90s he was editor in the magazine Arkzin Zagreb. His essays and articles cover topics of philosophy, politics, cultural and art criticism. He has participated in various conferences and art exhibitions in Western and Eastern Europe, Asia and USA, among other Documenta XI. Buden is the author of Barikade Zagreb, 1996/1997, Kaptolski Kolodvor, Belgrade 2001, Der Schacht von Babel, Berlin 2004. Zone des Übergangs, Frankfurt/Main, 2009. Buden is board member of the European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies in Vienna and visiting scholar at Bauhaus University Weimar.

Naoki Sakai – the ends of area studies
Naoki Sakai teaches in the departments of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies and is a member of the graduate field of History at Cornell University. He has published in a number of languages in the fields of comparative literature, intellectual history, translation studies, the studies of racism and nationalism, and the histories of semiotic and literary multitude - speech, writing, corporeal expressions, calligraphic regimes, and phonographic traditions. His publications include: Translation and Subjectivity, Voices of the Past, and The Stillbirth of the Japanese as a Language and as an Ethnos. He has led the project of TRACES, a multilingual series in four languages – Spanish, Korean, Chinese, English, and Japanese - whose editorial office is located at Cornell, and served as its founding senior editor (1996 - 2004). In addition to TRACES, Naoki Sakai serves as a member of the following editorial boards, positions - asia cultures critique (in the United States), Post-colonial studies (in Britain), Tamkang Review (in Taiwan), and ASPECTS (South Korea).

Attending the workshop – travel and accommodations
There are no fees to participate in the workshop. However, participants are expected to cover their own travel and accommodations. The workshop will provide several of the meals during the four days.
LODGING
The East Asia Program has arranged for rooms on the Cornell campus.
For an air-conditioned SINGLE OCCUPANCY dorm room on the Cornell West campus, the cost is $78/night, or approximately $455 for the 5 nights (July 10 – 14, 2016) including 8% tax.
For an air-conditioned DOUBLE OCCUPANCY dorm room on the Cornell West campus, the cost is $55/night, or approximately $330 for the 5 nights (July 10 – 14, 2016) including 8% tax.
Other Accommodations
See VistitIthaca.com's Lodging Search page for accommodations in the surrounding area. There are houses for short-term rental, which could accommodate groups of people at an overall lower cost than taking single rooms. Hotels in downtown Ithaca or near to the Cornell campus are also available.
Travel to and from Ithaca
Detailed information is available on traveling to Ithaca by auto, air, bus, or train here: http://www.cornell.edu/visit/
Distance to Ithaca from Various Cities:
• Albany, 160 miles
• Allentown, 182 miles
• Binghamton, 46 miles
• Boston, 336 miles
• Buffalo, 155 miles
• Cleveland, 350 miles
• Montreal, 310 miles
• New York City, 234 miles
• Newark, 240 miles
• Philadelphia, 237 miles
• Pittsburgh, 378 miles
• Rochester, 90 miles
• Syracuse, 58 miles
• Toronto, 250 miles
• Washington, DC 375 miles

Airport
Ithaca's airport (ITH) is 12 minutes from campus. There are direct flights to Ithaca from Detroit (good for Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S. West Coast), Philadelphia (good for U.S. East Coast and some cities in Europe), and New York City (Newark airport).
Syracuse airport (SYR): 90 minutes from campus.
Elmira airport (ELM): 1 hour.
• Find Taxi
Taxi services are arranged through Ithaca Dispatch, 607-277-7777, or Ithaca Airline Limousine, 800-273-9197, 607-273-3030. Limo service can be arranged through ELS Limo.
• Find Bus
Campus-to-Campus bus travels to and from New York City daily. A new service is also available, called Big Red Bullet. There is a Greyhound station in down town Ithaca. Shortline provides service to and from several towns in New York State. TCAT buses provide local and regional transportation.
Driving:
Yahoo! Directions to Hoy Field Parking Garage From Where You Are
I-81 (from the south): Take exit 8 at Whitney Point; follow Route 79 West all the way to Ithaca. At the flashing yellow light (intersection with Pine Tree Road), turn right onto Pine Tree Road; continue to the end of Pine Tree Road at the intersection with Route 366 (flashing red light). Turn left onto Route 366; continue to the flashing yellow light and proceed straight onto Hoy Road; the parking garage and stadium will be on your right. Hoy Road ends at the intersection with Campus Road; turn right onto Campus Road to reach Bartels Hall (formerly the field house).

I-81 (from the north):Take exit 12 at Homer/Cortland, turn left onto Route 281 and continue on 281 until it merges with Route 13 South. Take Route 13 South through the Village of Dryden. Near the NYSEG facility, bear left onto Route 366; take Route 366 to the flashing yellow light and proceed straight onto Hoy Road; the parking garage and stadium will be on your right. Hoy Road ends at the intersection with Campus Road; turn right onto Campus Road to reach the Bartels Hall (formerly the field house).

I-90 (from the west): Take exit 42 and pick up Route 96 South all the way to Ithaca. Watch for signs to Route 79 East (Green Street); take Route 79 (Green Street) through downtown Ithaca. Green Street merges with State Street (still Route 79 East); continue up State Street to the top of the hill and turn left onto Mitchell Street (watch for signs directing you to Cornell). Follow signs to Route 366 (Ithaca Road) and to Cornell; bear left onto Ithaca Road and continue on Ithaca Road to a "Y" intersection with a flashing red light. Turn left onto Hoy Road; the parking garage and stadium will be on your right. Hoy road ends at the intersection with Campus Road; turn right onto Campus Road to reach Bartels Hall (formerly the field house).

Route 13 (from the south): Take Route 13 into the City of Ithaca; turn East on Route 79 (Green Street). Take Route 79 (Green Street) through downtown Ithaca. Green Street merges with State Street (still Route 79 East); continue up State Street to the top of the hill and turn left onto Mitchell Street (watch for signs directing you to Cornell). Follow signs to Route 366 (Ithaca Road) and to Cornell; bear left onto Ithaca Road and continue on Ithaca Road to a "Y" intersection with a flashing red light. Turn left onto Hoy Road; the parking garage and stadium will be on your right. Hoy road ends at the intersection with Campus Road; turn right onto Campus Road to reach Bartels Hall (formerly the field house).