The undersigned issue this joint statement to express our outrage about the conduct of the Board of Trustees and President Kotlikoff in response to the April 30/May 1 incident involving President Kotlikoff and Students for a Democratic Cornell (SDC).
Instead of an independent investigation as was called for, the Board of Trustees established a small committee of its own members and named the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) as investigators. Although the Trustees announced that the CUPD would report directly to them in this instance, the existing relationship between these parties and the President, as well as CUPD’s central role in arresting student protesters, made it far from an independent investigation. Faculty, students and staff immediately raised concerns about the process.
The Trustees’ email of May 15 shows these concerns were unfortunately well-founded. The investigation was disturbingly rapid. It seems to have given no consideration to whether President Kotlikoff’s choice to back up his vehicle while students were nearby was good judgment, at the standard we should expect of the President of an educational institution. Nor was there any consideration of the fact that President Kotlikoff did not reach out to see if the students were all right, whether immediately when his car hit them, or, as he claims, when he supposedly learned about it afterwards. Instead, the Trustees placed exclusive blame on the students, and were indifferent to the significant questions about the President’s judgment and lack of concern for the students’ well-being.
The Trustees’ email reveals the investigation failed to consider the appropriateness of President Kotlikoff’s use of the Cornell communications system to advance his own case. For many community members, this was the most concerning aspect of the incident. President Kotlikoff’s May 1 email inappropriately disclosed students’ disciplinary records, accused them of physically attacking his vehicle, and disparaged them as engaging in harassment and intimidation. For those unaware of the incident before the email, President Kotlikoff’s words painted a deeply concerning picture of student behavior. Subsequent video evidence contradicted President Kotlikoff’s description, and revealed the students to be asking him relevant questions about Cornell’s speech policies and disciplinary processes.
President Kotlikoff’s May 1 email also had an elaborate discussion of his car’s automatic alert system. This is inexplicable unless the President was already aware or at least suspected that he had struck students with his vehicle, in contradiction to his May 15 email. Had he not known of this possibility, he would not have discussed his car’s alert system. If he did know, he should have reached out to the students and held off making statements. To suggest otherwise is implausible and insulting to the goodwill of the community.
In his email of May 15, President Kotlikoff still does not accept any responsibility, nor show concern for the students’ well-being. He does implicitly concede that he hit the students with his car, and concedes that in retrospect he should have not tried to back out but instead called the CUPD. We should expect better judgment and greater empathy and patience of a University President. In a striking passage, President Kotlikoff suggests he will not pursue a Student Code of Conduct complaint only because this would give the students the public attention they supposedly want. This again treats the students as hostile adversaries, rather than legitimate members of a community whom he may have injured. It also betrays a dismaying indifference to the seriousness of the consequences students have experienced under the Student Code. We agree with the decision not to pursue a complaint. Announcing this could instead have been an occasion for greater reflection and understanding.
It is now evident that the investigation was a sham. The speed with which it was conducted suggests the intent was to craft a favorable narrative in time for commencement and reunion. It evaded any consideration of whether the President’s actions, at any of several moments, were appropriate for the leader of a University. There were no findings reported on the process through which the May 1 email was sent and the substance of that email, including the President’s insinuation of disciplinary records (denied by the students) and his disparagement of the students. The alignment in messaging between the President’s and Trustees’ May 15 emails instead suggests a coordinated public relations campaign, rather than a serious inquiry about what happened and what could have been done differently.
The Trustees urge the Cornell community “to foster and uphold an environment where we allow for debate and dissent practiced with civility, respect, and accountability.” This statement rings hollow in light of a process evidently designed to exculpate leadership, rather than establish any measure of accountability or anchor an expectation that leadership will be concerned with student well-being. It rings hollow in light of the past two years of restrictions on speech, the lack of due process in imposing draconian disciplinary measures on students, and the weakening of shared governance.
We reject the public relations campaign launched by the Trustees and President Kotlikoff. We continue to support the Students for a Democratic Cornell in their call for more democratic governance on campus, including restoring an independent judicial system, ending suspensions of nonviolent protesters, and holding a public meeting between administrators and the campus community to address these issues.
Cornell Chapter of the American Association of University Professors
Cornell Courage
Cornell Coalition for Justice in Palestine
Cornell Graduate Students United – UE
Cornell Chapter of the AAUP 