Defending academic freedom, shared governance, the economic security, the rights of all those who teach or conduct research in higher education, advocating for the interests of the broader community, whether in Ithaca, Tompkins County, or beyond, and protecting higher education as a public good
Last night, in a case in which the AAUP was a plaintiff, the US District Court for the District of Maryland granted a preliminary nationwide injunction on key parts of a pair of executive orders issued by President Trump. The orders broadly and in vague terms seek to end diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities among federal government grantees and contractors, including virtually all colleges and universities.
In its decision, the court explicitly cited the evidence provided by courageous AAUP members when it found that there were “concrete actual injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and their members” as a result of the unlawful actions of the administration and that AAUP members and their institutions would “be forced to either restrict their legal activities and expression that are arguably related to DEI, or forgo federal funding altogether.”
The decision was in response to a suit filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of four organizations representing different affected groups: the AAUP (representing faculty members), the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (representing their diversity officer members), the City of Baltimore (representing a public sector grantee), and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (representing a private sector grantee). We sought this temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration from using federal grants and contracts as leverage to force colleges and universities to end all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, whether federally funded or not, and from terminating any “equity-related” federal grants or contracts.
As our brief explained, the orders are unconstitutional, usurping congressional power and violating First and Fifth Amendment rights. Absent preliminary relief, significant and irreparable harm would have been caused to our members, their students, and communities. Most importantly, the government could have used the threat of terminating billions of dollars of grants and contracts, as well as the threat of investigations and enforcement actions, to force faculty and universities to cease virtually all of their legally permissible work relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
The AAUP’s membership includes many potentially affected faculty: those whose work focuses on Black studies; Latino studies; Asian studies; gender or sexual orientation identities; diversity, equity, and inclusion specifically; environmental justice; and other subject matter targeted by the president’s anti-DEIA executive orders. We also represent a significant number of members who focus on medical and other scientific research related to whether and how race and ethnicity affect health outcomes. Beyond AAUP members, students and communities would be harmed by the termination of the higher education grants: work on female reproductive health would be curtailed; assistance to help students with disabilities and from underrepresented populations graduate and find careers would be undermined; and efforts to strengthen research capacity at historically Black colleges and universities would be set back.
The judge noted that our lawsuit is likely to succeed on the claim that enforcement actions against companies and universities would violate constitutionally protected free speech and wrote: “That is textbook viewpoint-based discrimination . . . . The government’s threat of enforcement is not just targeted towards enforcement of federal law. Rather, the provision expressly targets, and threatens, the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.”
More information:
The orders in question are titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
The AAUP is supporting the American Federation of Teachers’ mobilization to defend education
The Trump administration wants to make painful cuts to education and healthcare in order to slash taxes for billionaires. The administration’s plan to “block grant” federal education programs and gut the U.S. Department of Education would rob 26 million students living in poverty of critical services and 7.5 million students with disabilities of special education support. It would eliminate career and technical education for 12 million students, threatening their future job opportunities. Slashing Medicaid and student loans could strip healthcare coverage from 10.3 million people and end access to student loans, making college unaffordable for another 10 million working-class families.
Join us on March 4 and stand up to protect our kids!
On Tuesday, March 4, educators, students, parents and community allies will stand up against assaults on public education and on opportunity for America’s youth. We are calling on lawmakers to strengthen, not undermine, our local public schools and the services they provide to children, families and communities.
By highlighting the harmful consequences of these attacks on public schools and students, we aim to build public pressure on policymakers and amplify the voices of those directly impacted.
We must:
Pressure decision-makers: Urge elected officials at both the federal and state levels to oppose cuts to federal funding and block grants, both of which will hurt kids.
Raise awareness: Educate the public about the devastating consequences of dismantling the Department of Education, gutting federal education funding and providing no-strings-attached block grants.
Mobilize support: Engage a broad coalition of stakeholders—including educators, students, parents and community members—to participate in actions nationwide.
Drive media coverage: Generate media attention through storytelling, coordinated events, rallies, etc.
Lift up our stories: Highlight how these cuts disproportionately harm vulnerable students, including those from underserved communities and students with disabilities.
Take action in our communities: Wage this fight in the communities where students will lose services they rely on, not just in Washington, D.C.
Day of Action activities can include:
Local and national events: Organize rallies, marches and teach-ins in key cities and communities on March 4. Partner with local organizations to host panels or town halls focused on the impact of federal education funding cuts.
Advocacy and lobbying: Organize call-in days and email campaigns targeting legislators to urge them to oppose the Trump agenda that will hurt our public schools and communities. Provide participants with scripts and talking points for contacting their representatives.
Story collection and amplification: Collect and share real-life stories from educators, students and parents showcasing the tangible harm cuts to services and supports they rely on will cause. Use videos, blogs and social media to amplify their voices.
Media outreach: Conduct interviews with local media outlets and adapt a sample press release and op-ed featuring impacted individuals.
Digital mobilization: Launch a robust social media campaign with shareable graphics, infographics and videos using the hashtag #ProtectOurKids to drive engagement and awareness.
The director for the AAUP Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, Isaac Kamola, is sharing resources for the fight:
The cruelty of the new administration’s attack on democracy and higher education has been staggering, from arbitrary cuts to research funding to the malicious misrepresentation of our work to Linda McMahon’s unwillingness to say that teaching African American history is still legal.
Fighting back requires understanding the threats we face as well as developing the tools necessary to convey the value of higher education to a wide audience. In this context, the AAUP’s Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom has recently published a number of resources that we hope will be useful in the fight ahead:
Academic Freedom on the Line is a weekly Substack edited by CDAF fellow John Warner. This newsletter examines questions around academic freedom, its role in a democratic society, and what is lost when academic communities face politicized attacks on institutional autonomy and shared governance. Check out posts on CDAF’s mission, the risks of obeying in advance, advice for college and university boards, and reflections on the recent “Dear Colleague” letter.
Executive Power Watch is a series of short handouts that offer analyses of education-related executive actions, including executive orders that target diversity, equity, and inclusion; weaponize antisemitism; and target transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people. These resources offer concrete suggestions about what you can do to fight back.
Action Reports are short studies that offer concrete analysis and guidance on how to respond to particular threats to academic freedom, such as
Future Action Reports will examine the American Council of Trustees and Alumni and strategies for using collective bargaining agreements to resist post-tenure review laws.
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.
Members of the Cornell community — custodians, groundskeepers, cooks, food service workers, greenhouse employees, gardeners, mechanics and others — are on strike. As the administration has acknowledged, the work these employees do is absolutely essential to the basic operation of the University. None of us can work, learn, research or teach in their absence.
Naturally, the strike has placed enormous stress on the institution. Basic work can’t be done.
And so the University leadership has asked us all to “step up” and pitch in, with emails from central administration, many colleges and other units giving guidelines on how all of us — students, faculty, staff, etc. — can do “our part.” To take extra responsibility to keep facilities clean. To volunteer for additional shifts. To serve food to students in dining halls. Retirees have been invited to fill in for former colleagues. The University leadership wants us to think of this as a noble, community effort to ensure that our students are fed, our facilities are clean and that Cornell continues to function despite the absence of its essential workers.
No doubt some of us have an inherent impulse to “step up” and do our part. This is natural, and the desire to help is a good one. We probably all believe that we should contribute when there is a crisis. And we hold in some contempt those who refuse to do so, who treat additional work produced by a crisis as someone else’s responsibility.
A labor strike, however, is one of those vital moments where a deeper logic is revealed. Strikes reveal the moral inadequacy of “community” as a guiding principle, how “stepping up” and “chipping in” can in fact be a cover for immoral actions.
A labor strike is not equivalent to a natural disaster or a crisis outside of our making. A strike reveals a profound conflict within our community, in this case one that is the result of the University’s own policies and choices. These include Cornell’s consistent refusal to recognize or pay for the considerable costs associated with its successes — a cost-of-living crisis in Ithaca and surrounding communities — and its desire to keep in its control as much of the value produced by its workforce as it can.
The workers represented by UAW 2300 have voted, democratically and overwhelmingly, to collectively withhold their labor until this conflict is resolved on terms that allow them to live and thrive.
The capacity to collectively withhold labor is the only real source of power workers have. In this context, “stepping up” or “doing our part” in the way that the University would like takes on a very different meaning. The workers have chosen to withhold their labor. The University would like us to replace it. This is not chipping in – it is choosing a side. When we replace striking labor, whether in their jobs or the work that they would be doing, we attack and undermine our friends and colleagues in their collective decisions and struggle. To “step up” in this context means taking the side of their employer, who wields enormous power over their lives and the lives of many others.
This is what it means to break a strike. This is what it means to scab.Subscribe to our daily newsletter!
“Community” can be a vague, empty term. We only imbue it with meaning through our actions. The University leadership has shown us its vision of “community.” It has shown this vision of community in its persistent refusal to recognize the value of its workers and the costs it imposes on Ithaca and neighboring communities. It has shown this vision of community in its misleading communications, wrongly implying that members of the Cornell community are outside employees of the UAW. It has shown this vision in spending what must be, after successive campaigns, millions of dollars to strike-breaking and union-busting firms, in order to undermine the democratic decisions of its employees. And it has shown this vision of community in its requests to employees to replace the work of their friends and colleagues.
The University appeals to our better natures, to our commitment to community, to conceal their real ask: to betray these friends and colleagues, at the moment when they are most in need of our support.
The Cornell leadership of the UAW 2300 chapter, by contrast, has shown a richer vision of what community needs and what it can be. They too appeal to our desire to help out, to step up. They have asked for solidarity, rather than to undermine each other. To not replace striking labor or the work that they do. To show up on the picket line. To voice support. To demand that Cornell sign a fair contract. They have asked us to take the side of those members of our community fighting for a better life. They have asked us to stand with them.
And in so doing, they are teaching us that real community can only be forged by a honest appraisal of injustice and unfairness, by a real understanding of the power that a few employers and institutional leaders hold over everyone else, and by a real commitment to challenging it.
David A. Bateman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Government. His research focuses broadly on democratic institutions; he is an expert in the American legislative branch. He can be reached at dab465@cornell.edu.
Cornell Chapter of the AAUP 