News and updates

David Bateman has published a guest column for the Daily Sun about the draft report on institutional voice, on behalf of the chapter executive committee.

tl;dr version: the report is generally quite strong in endorsing restraint rather than neutrality, and so long as it is understood as defining that restraint as applying only to the president and provost who alone speak on behalf of the university. But practical recommendations for departments (not policy, as Avery August made explicit in the Faculty Senate) go beyond these principles, threaten to reduce faculty’s collective ability to communicate their expertise or participate in shared governance, and should be dropped fom the report.

More at the link:

Departments and centers can reasonably be encouraged to come up with procedures for when they speak as a collective. … But such a recommendation can only be advisory, and should not in any way be a requirement …

[The consequence of recommendations at the department or center level] is that they will impair the inevitable judgment required by the president and provost when deciding when the University should speak or stay silent. To exercise this judgment wisely, they will need to be listening. The University is more than a corporate body. It is a community, and the diverse individuals, departments and organizations that constitute this community must be able to speak, in their multiple and overlapping and discordant voices, through governing assemblies, through departments and centers, through student organizations, through faculty organizations and associations, etc. A proliferation of speech at these levels should be encouraged, because it is through this alone that a community can undertake its responsibility to define its values and interests, to map issues onto those values, and to inform decisions about what — if anything — the University as a corporate body should say or do.

The report’s clarification that only the president and provost speak for the University as a corporate body, and recommendation that they do so with restraint, guided by core values and mission, is very reasonable. Its suggestions about how to clarify this at the departmental or center level, or clarify when and how departments should exercise their own voice, go beyond the report’s definition of institutional voice and threaten to dampen or limit speech among the constitutive units of the University community. Their adoption would be a violation of academic freedom and shared governance, but would also limit the ability of central leadership to be fully informed in exercising their judgment about institutional voice. 

The Cornell AAUP chapter has consistently stated that any deal with the Trump administration would be strategically unwise and a betrayal of Cornell’s principles. This remains the case. We are heartened to see that Cornell University’s deal omits many of the worst provisions present in deals made by other universities. The opposition of faculty, students, and engaged members of the Cornell community gave Cornell’s leadership the courage of our convictions. 

That said, the agreement contains harmful provisions, which in some areas go well beyond what the law requires. The agreement states that the parties affirm their support for academic freedom and for civil rights. However, there are provisions in the agreement that belie these statements. Elements of the agreement also threaten some of the most vulnerable students on campus and invite ongoing federal government supervision to reduce the diversity of Cornell’s student body.

1. The agreement uses a narrow definition of academic freedom – referring only to the “content of academic speech or curricula.” (par. II.5) Under AAUP principles, which have been adopted in Cornell policy, academic freedom includes teaching, research, public speech, and university governance. In explaining the agreement, Cornell President Kotlikoff made assurances that Cornell did not compromise its commitment to academic freedom or free speech. We understand this to mean that Cornell’s Policy Statement on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression remains intact. 
2. Cornell agrees to use “as a training resource for faculty and staff” the Department of Justice’s July 29, 2025 “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.” (par. II.6). This “Guidance” is a memorandum that restates the Trump administration’s anti-trans and anti-diversity positions – none of which are enforceable as law. Critically, President Kotlikoff clarified in today’s town hall meeting that this guidance is not law and committed that it will not form the basis of Cornell policy unless it becomes law. Nonetheless, using the guidance in any capacity, such as “training … for faculty and staff,” sells out people of color and trans members of our community. Implementing these guidelines as part of training resources conflicts with current civil rights law and is incompatible with creating a welcoming environment for trans students and students of color.
3. Cornell agrees to provide the federal government, on a quarterly basis, with “anonymized undergraduate admissions data…broken down by race, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests.” (par. II.9) This agreement goes beyond the Supreme Court’s SFFA v. Harvard decision about affirmative action in student admissions. What Cornell has done, in effect, is to invite the federal government to use Cornell data to implement the Trump administration’s hostile agenda to block the admission of students of diverse races and ethnicities. The requirement that this information should be provided to the government as a matter of ongoing practice, rather than providing relevant information on the as-needed basis that currently exists, reveals it for what it is: a mechanism of heightened federal control.
4. The agreement intrudes on Cornell’s independence and faculty academic freedom to set research priorities. It requires the University to direct funds towards specific programs and priorities determined by the federal government (par. II.13). Cornell’s agreement to invest $30 million to research programs benefiting US farmers is an example of the federal government intervening in Cornell’s priorities on research content and amounts of research funding — here, research earmarked to benefit farmers. President Kotlikoff has committed to having the provost create a “fair and competitive process” for allocating those funds, but has indicated no consideration for how these would be connected into existing academic and disciplinary expertise and governance. There is, moreover, no mention of farmworkers rights or their working and living conditions, only technology to reduce the need for farm labor.
5. The agreement provides a $30 million payout to the Trump administration (paragraph II.14). The Trump Administration has presented no evidence that Cornell has failed to comply with civil rights laws and has ignored all established procedures for sanctioning universities for violating those laws. This agreement threatens to instead align Cornell practices with Trump’s anti-diversity and anti-affirmative action interpretations of those laws. It is extortion plain and simple. 
6. The agreement creates a mechanism for recurring federal interventions on the basis of required surveys and information transfers. Cornell’s agreement to conduct annual campus climate surveys (paragraph II.15) focuses specifically on “the climate for students with shared Jewish ancestry,” “whether they feel safe reporting antisemitism at Cornell,” and “whether they believe the changes Cornell has made since October of 2023…have benefited the Cornell community.” These provisions suggest an underlying and incorrect assumption that conflates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism. Moreover, these provisions ignore the problems of Islamophobia on campus and the importance of creating a positive campus climate for students who are Muslim or of other shared ancestry. The annual survey should be comprehensive of all students, inviting them to identify by shared ancestry and to evaluate Cornell’s climate on that basis. The question about changes implemented since October should specify those changes, with all students asked about whether, for example, the expressive activity policy has benefited the Cornell community.
7. President Kotlikoff has assured us that this agreement means that the federal government cannot renew its assault on Cornell’s independence through Title VI, but will – if new complaints arise – follow the letter of the law and the processes it sets out. The promise to not break the law next time would be more reassuring if the federal government had not broken the law this time. 

Any proposed agreement should have been presented to the University Faculty and other governing bodies at Cornell. The Cornell administration’s acceptance of this agreement without any faculty governance involvement is a betrayal of Cornell’s shared governance structures. 

Going forward, the implementation of this agreement needs to be closely monitored by faculty, through the Faculty Senate and other mechanisms. The use of federal guidance as a “training resource” should be minimal, should make clear that the guidance does not state current law, and should not endorse any of that document’s anti-trans and anti-diversity positions. The allocation of the $30 million in research funding must be compatible with faculty governance. The annual climate survey must capture the perspectives of all community members on campus climate, especially those most vulnerable right now. 

The Cornell Chapter of the AAUP will continue fighting to protect academic freedom and shared governance as Cornell moves from negotiating to implementing this dangerous agreement.