Over the past several days, many Cornell employees received emails from the EEOC asking that they take part in a survey to aid in an investigation of antisemitism on campus. No notice of this investigation had been provided by Cornell to the community, leading many to wonder whether this was a malicious phishing attempt. The Cornell AAUP chapter contacted the Office of Civil Rights and IT Cornell to ask whether Cornell knew of the emails and whether they were secure.
Cornell’s OCR was unaware of the emails, and after IT Cornell confirmed that they were indeed from eeoc.gov the AAUP pressed the President, Provost, VP for HR, and general counsel for more information. Eventually, Cornell acknowledged that it turned over information on current and former employees to the federal government sometime after August 2025, after being made aware of the investigation in July 2025.
In doing so, the University has violated its own commitment to notify employees in the event of a request for information from the federal government. The justification was Kafka-esque: the commitment to notify affected persons only applies in the case of individuals, not “broad data requests” that cover all employees.
At our urging, on March 19, Cornell finally communicated information about the EEOC emails to employees. This communication leaves critical questions and issues unanswered:
- All evidence points to an extremely broad information request by the EEOC. It is highly questionable that such a broad survey is needed to investigate what Cornell has stated is “an employee bias complaint.” The EEOC’s broad distribution of its survey seems to be more of a “fishing expedition” rather than an appropriately tailored investigation.
- Cornell has acknowledged that the data request was extraordinarily “expansive,” so much so that they sought the advice of outside legal counsel. While other universities have decided to sue when presented with such expansive requests, Cornell decided to comply. Given the federal government’s pattern of overly broad demands to universities, why didn’t Cornell resist complying with this one?
- People are receiving information at their personal email addresses. Cornell has now acknowledged that it provided “required contact information, including email addresses,” leaving unexplained the breadth of the information provided. Cornell insists that it provided only “address[es] … on file with the Ithaca/Cornell AgriTech/Cornell Tech or Weill Cornell H.R. systems,” and stated that if persons received this at other addresses “it was not provided by either entity.” Cornell needs to explain what it provided – including private email addresses that it may have had “on file” – as well as what it was asked to provide.
- When Cornell’s deal with the federal government was announced in fall 2025, President Kotlikoff in a video declared that the agreement closed all open investigations into Cornell. While the text of the agreement made an exception for the EEOC for future investigations, the clear implication from the leadership was that all open investigations were resolved. It is now clear that the University was at that time aware of an open investigation that would not be resolved and that would likely involve the disclosure of employee personal information to the federal government. Why did President Kotlikoff not inform the community about this investigation at that time?
- When exactly did the University learn that employees were to be contacted? Why did it not provide adequate notice to employees at this time?
- If requests for personal contact information do not trigger the University’s commitment to notify affected persons, what would?
Antisemitism and racism are real threats, and Cornell has real obligations to address them. But Cornell’s compliance occurs within a context of this federal administration weaponizing antisemitism and civil rights laws in their attacks on higher education. The survey questions leave little room for denying having experienced discrimination or harassment. The questions on hiring and promotion are written to equate any diversity initiatives with discrimination. No questions are asked about other religious or national groups, despite Cornell being on the Council on American-Islamic Relation’s list of universities hostile to Muslim students. The EEOC failed to provide adequate notice to employees, leaving many to delete it as a malicious phishing attempt. The email did not make clear that taking the survey is voluntary.
This is not a reliable way of assessing the campus environment. It fits the federal government’s cynical pattern of using the real danger of antisemitism as a pretext to chill protected speech about Israel’s state actions, as well as its use of civil rights laws to attack perfectly legal diversity and inclusion initiatives.
This federal administration has proven itself fundamentally hostile to higher education, and indifferent to and even supportive of antisemitism and racism. It should not be given the presumption of good faith, especially when its requests are unprecedentedly “expansive.” The Cornell community is owed much greater transparency than we have received. We should expect our leadership to defend higher education, and we call on them to deepen coordination with other universities to resist rather than comply with the assault on higher education.
Cornell Chapter of the AAUP 