News and updates

LIEBERWITZ | Interim President Kotlikoff Has Violated Faculty Academic Freedom

On Monday, November 11, an article appeared in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article in which Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff was quoted denouncing a course scheduled to be taught by Cornell faculty member Eric Cheyfitz titled “Gaza, Indigeneity and Resistance”. Kotlikoff went further to question the integrity of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences college curriculum committee for approving a course he objected to on transparently political grounds. And he asserted that he was actively working with colleagues in other departments to develop courses that will offer more “objective” courses on the topic.  In other words, that conform to political criteria for how Palestine should be studied and taught (or not) at Cornell.

The story made national and international news, and Cheyfitz and his family began receiving hate mail including obscene calls for violence against his wife, children and grandchildren. Kotlikoff confirmed to Cheyfitz that he wrote the quotes attributed to him, but did not apologize.

Kotlikoff’s remarks are an egregious threat to bedrock principles of academic freedom, as well as Cornell’s commitment to “any person, any study.” They raise the specter of administrative interference in faculty control over curricular decisions and course instruction. They suggest that, despite repeated disavowals, the leadership of the University not only intends to scrutinize the in-class activities of Cornell faculty but is actively doing so where it is deemed politically desirable. Ultimately, his comments and actions threaten to degrade the quality of education students receive at Cornell and the ability of the University to be a leading center of research and knowledge production.

Kotlikoff’s remarks are not justifiable on the basis of his authority as University president. Faculty control over education is an essential component of academic freedom. This principle is manifested institutionally in several ways, from the authority of the University Faculty – delegated to the Faculty Senate – over general educational policy, to the authority of faculty of any particular college or school to determine its own courses of study, including the offering of any new majors or minors, to the faculty-led curricular or educational policy committees in each college or school, which determine the relevant educational policies and ensures new courses are compliant with state credit requirements or accreditation requirements.

As “chief educational officer,” the president is a member of the faculty and serves as an ex officio member of the more general bodies. But the president’s role is most extensive in matters of general educational policy, and most circumscribed or absent when it comes to specific courses or curricula. He does not serve on the educational policy or curricular committees tasked with making decisions about specific courses.

This reflects a recognition that while the president is charged with overseeing the general educational policy of the University, the office’s broad authority could pose a threat to academic freedom and the quality of education were it to be exercised at the level of curricular design or classroom instruction. As former President Pollack acknowledged in the context of proposals for new majors, such decisions are rightly “the domain of faculty members,” who are “in the best position to understand the disciplinary context and student interest.” This is even more true at the level of specific courses and classroom instruction.

Presidential authority is also limited by corresponding responsibilities to not only respect but jealously defend academic freedom. As Cornell’s policy commitments put it, a core pillar of academic freedom is “freedom of expression in the classroom on matters relevant to the subject and the purpose of the course and of choice of methods in classroom teaching.”

Academic freedom and faculty control over education requires that curricular and educational policy committees be protected against interference or administrative pressure, whether used to suppress a course or create new ones, and that they show broad deference to individual faculty’s expertise. While these committees might reasonably require some level of standardization in core courses, they generally avoid inspecting instructors’ substantive choices over readings or topics, especially in non-core courses. It is unreasonable to expect that any individual or committee could develop sufficient area expertise to evaluate the great diversity of courses taught at Cornell or in any school or college. More important, restraint and deference to faculty expertise is essential to realizing the public mission of universities as well as the specific values of “any person, any study” at Cornell. The members of the curricular and educational policy committees work carefully and in good faith to achieve this balance, ensuring that the overall curricular goals of the college or school are being achieved, that state and accreditation requirements are met, and that academic freedom in the offering and design of individual courses is respected and defended. Their efforts should not be carelessly dismissed by leadership, nor subjected to pressure from it.

Unlike Professor Cheyfitz, who has been teaching and publishing in this area for decades, President Kotlikoff is not an expert on Palestine/Israel and has no academic basis for objecting to the content of a course that has not yet been taught, in a field of study in which he has never been active, and in a discipline and program of which he is not a member. More important, his institutional responsibilities preclude him from weighing in on what courses individual instructors choose to teach or to question how they structure their syllabi, or on the decisions and deliberations of the relevant faculty committees that approve these courses. It is not just distasteful to second-guess and decry his faculty colleagues, whether individuals such as Cheyfitz or the responsible faculty bodies such as the curriculum committee. It is an abuse of his institutional position.

Most worrisome, Kotlikoff’s email is indicative of broader patterns that have become evident over the last year: the undermining of academic freedom and faculty control over education based on political litmus tests; and a reckless willingness to throw faculty, students, and staff under the bus when they become political targets, sharing information or administrative opinions about them with individuals or institutions with no legal right to know.

Nor are Kotlikoff’s comments excused by the context in which they were delivered. The quote was taken from an email sent to a Cornell faculty member, who then shared it with the press. But this was not private kvetching. The only reason Kotlikoff was asked his views is because he is president, and he must have reasonably expected to be read not as stating a personal opinion but as communicating University policy.

Kotlikoff’s email comes only a month after Cornell Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina was recorded, in a private meeting with parents, promising that in-class instruction activities for all faculty would be scrutinized. He singled out two faculty members in particular, whether because he had decided that their personal political positions were upsetting to some of the parents or because the administrators themselves had objected to the faculty members’ politics. In response to the ensuing outcry against this clear violation of academic freedom in teaching, Interim Provost John Siliciano repeatedly assured the governing bodies that Malina’s statements did not reflect Cornell policy. Kotlikoff’s email suggests, to the contrary, that such scrutiny is already occurring, or at least is when a course involves Israel/Palestine and is being taught by instructors who might present perspectives that do not conform to political criteria.

Last spring, we witnessed how Cornell would respond to politically motivated attacks on the University. Congressional committees demanded that specific student organizations be punished; Cornell immediately began changing its rules and processes to comply, in violation of established processes of shared governance. Where rule changes were insufficient, Cornell leadership pushed ahead and violated explicit constraints on the use of temporary suspensions, punishing students for whom there was not even a prima facia case for having violated any Cornell policy let alone rising to the level of immediate threat for which temporary suspensions are designed. Faculty and staff have been singled out for investigation and discipline based on their political views.

When remarks at an off-campus rally by a faculty member in the College of Arts and Sciences generated a political backlash, the president and provost announced that they found his views appalling and promised to scrutinize his teaching to find some plausible basis for revoking tenure. They announced this publicly, even as Kotlikoff – then provost – repeatedly assured faculty bodies in private closed sessions that he saw no possible reason to believe that the faculty member had violated Cornell policies. To politicians and other outside actors, they fueled the fire, contributing to the extraordinary wave of threats and harassment this faculty member and their family faced. They did this while privately assuring concerned faculty that there was nothing to worry about.

Political attacks on the University are only going to get worse. The question is how the University will respond. Will it continue to recklessly denounce faculty, students, and staff to anyone who asks, be they politicians, parents, donors, or any other random member of the community? Or will the University commit, through its policies and behaviors, to protecting academic freedom and free expression, to protecting shared governance, and to protecting faculty, students, and staff when acting on these principles?

Kotlikoff owes Cheyfitz an apology. He owes the University community something more. He owes us an affirmative, public commitment that going forward University leadership will not respond to inquiries about individual faculty, students, or staff with anything beyond a statement of Cornell’s commitment to academic freedom and free inquiry. If those inquiries are backed by legal authority, he owes us a commitment that the University will use its considerable legal and political resources to contest that authority. He owes us a commitment that he will cease recklessly participating, intentionally or not, in the politically motivated attacks against the University and academic freedom.