4 thoughts on "Faculty Senate – October 22, 2025"

1. Although the initial news reporting portrayed the actions of Professor Cheyfitz as reactions to disruption by the student, it has now become clear that he ejected this student after attending three lectures and only speaking up once, briefly, in lecture 2, and that the student’s nationality was cited by him as one reason, that violates written policies, and the law, but also violates my understanding of the proper role of a professor, namely to welcome a diversity of students and help them engage on issues in a serious yet unbiased way. As written, the motion seems to legitimize Cheyfitz’s actions. For this reason I’m am voting against it.

   Log in to Reply

2. From: Chris B. Schaffer, Faculty Senator for Biomedical Engineering

   Dear Colleagues,
   I thank members of the Faculty Senate and the broader University community for the robust and considered debate of this resolution. It has taken me some time to come to a decision about how to vote, and I am writing to share my perspective.

   This resolution centers on whether the Cornell administration followed published procedures in evaluating this case. The retirement settlement that was reached left much of the process outlined in our procedures incomplete.

   As I understand the facts, at the time of the retirement settlement, the professor:
   1. was paid a full salary and was not under suspension
   2. planned to offer classes in Fall 2025 and was prevented from doing so by the Provost and A&S Dean
   3. was investigated for discrimination based on national origin under Policy 6.4 by COCR and found responsible
   4. was presented with recommended sanctions (2 semester suspension without pay), but these had not yet been implemented
   5. appealed the COCR decision to the Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty Committee, which accepted the appeal and found insufficient evidence to find the professor responsible (with a higher evidentiary standard than COCR); again, no sanction was implemented at the time of the settlement
   6. was in the process of being investigated for failing to uphold ethical and professional standards under Faculty Handbook section 6.6, with an accusation of “viewpoint discrimination;” this process was halted at the time of the settlement

   I have several concerns with the approach taken by the administration.

   First, I have potential concerns about the dual adjudication paths employed here. I could understand a rationale for two separate accusations and two separate processes in this case, distinguishing between discrimination based on national origin and based on viewpoint relative to a class topic. These charges could be based on different facts or actions alleged to occur, thus warranting two investigations. On the other hand, if this is two parallel investigations of the same underlying alleged actions, then I would have preferred just a single adjudication process, in the interests of fairness. Without access to additional information, I cannot judge this. The administration could have cleared this up, without disclosing details, by indicating whether the same facts and alleged actions were the basis for both procedures or not.

   Second, I am concerned the Provost/Dean felt it was necessary to prevent the professor from teaching while these cases were being resolved. I think it is clearly within the purview of a Dean or the Provost to reassign faculty roles (in this case, a semester focused on scholarship with no teaching responsibilities, at full pay). In this case, however, the reassignment seems clearly intended to keep this professor out of the classroom due to a fear that additional policy violations may occur. This is a concerning use of power.

   Third, I am concerned about some of the language I have heard from the Provost and General Counsel about the obligation to follow the procedures outlined in our policies. In particular, at the Oct. 8 Senate meeting, the Provost stated that Cornell would be “violating Federal antidiscrimination law” if the Academic Freedom Committee’s decision was accepted. I think a fairer statement would be that we would have decided a case based on an evidentiary standard that is different from the one the Federal government would use in its own investigation. This would, as I understand it, open the University to potential legal liability, but would not “violate” existing law. The heavy-handed language used by the Provost to discuss the evidentiary standards issue lacked this important nuance. In addition, at the Oct. 22 Senate meeting, the General Counsel described some of the language in Policy 6.4 as a “compromise” between Counsel’s office and faculty committees that was “tolerated” by Counsel’s office, and brought this up in the context of the Academic Freedom Committee’s decision being deemed deficient. I believe that areas of contention that require hard-fought compromise in our policies are exactly the places where we need to most closely adhere to the written letter of the procedures, and I am concerned that the tone of the General Counsel’s comments were not aligned with this view.

   While I have disagreements about these choices made by the administration, I do not see these decisions as violating our policies. At the time of accepting a retirement settlement, the professor had received only a reassignment away from teaching duties. More significant sanctions had certainly been discussed and publicly justified as appropriate, and this pressure may have influenced the professor’s choice to reach a settlement with the administration, but no actions were taken against the professor other than the reassignment away from teaching. As such, I do not see where our policies were violated. While I disagree with some of the decisions made by the administration in handling the case, these disagreements do not, for me, rise to the level of justifying censure, so I will vote against the resolution. I join calls to improve these policies and procedures so we can avoid such a tangled mess in the future.

   Sincerely,
   Chris Schaffer

   Log in to Reply

3. Comment by Risa Lieberwitz, a cosponsor of the Resolution.

   I urge the Faculty Senate to vote in favor of this Resolution.

   The Resolution is not about relitigating the complaint against Prof. Cheyfitz, which was fully considered and decided by our Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status (AFPSF). The AFPSF Committee hearing panel unanimously concluded (6-0) that the University administration failed to prove its complaint against Prof. Cheyfitz.

   What the Resolution is about is our shared commitment to procedural fairness and due process, faculty governance, and academic freedom. This Resolution is about more than one person. The Resolution recognizes the importance of a fair process whether or not we agree with the political views of one of our colleagues. It is also about our joint commitment to procedures that exist for a reason—and that is to preserve faculty governance – through a hearing by our peers – as a check on centralized administrative power to unilaterally impose the most severe sanctions on one of our colleagues.

   It is during times of extreme stress that our policies and procedures are tested. This is a time when academic freedom, due process, and faculty governance matter most – including our respect for the role of the Faculty Senate Academic Freedom Committee to conduct a hearing about serious charges brought against our faculty peers.

   Unfortunately, at the Faculty Senate meeting, rather than addressing the Resolution, Provost Bala and General Counsel Varner spent most of their time attempting to relitigate the complaint against Prof. Cheyfitz. They unfairly characterized the case based on selected snippets of the case that supported their viewpoint. By doing this, they showed complete disrespect for Cornell Policy 6.4, under which the Faculty Senate Committee had concluded that the University did not prove their complaint, based on a full hearing of witness testimony and documentary evidence. As noted in the Resolution, Policy 6.4 clearly states, “The dean or equivalent unit head must accept the [AFPSF] Committee’s findings of fact and conclusions.” In complete disregard for this mandate, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences disregarded the mandate of Policy 6.4 and instead recommended to the Provost that Professor Cheyfitz be suspended without pay for two semesters.

   When the Dean and the Provost disagreed with the unanimous findings of the Committee on Academic Freedom under Policy 6.4, the Provost announced that there would be new proceedings under the Faculty Handbook sec. 6.6, which grants far less power to the faculty committee that hears the allegations, and which grants the President unfettered power to accept or reject their findings. The announcement of these new proceedings violated principles of double jeopardy and due process. The Provost further violated due process by cancelling Professor Cheyfitz’s classes in Fall 2025, which violates the standards of Cornell Faculty Handbook section 6.6 and amounts to punishment without process.

   As discussed at the Faculty Senate meeting, Policy 6.4 procedures lawfully meet the Title VI requirement that universities investigate and take prompt action to respond to discrimination complaints. Title VI does not require universities to use a particular standard of proof that universities must use in their grievance or complaint procedures. Cornell has lawfully adopted Policy 6.4 with the “clear and convincing evidence” standard used for the hearing by the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom. This evidence standard is appropriate when faculty face serious charges and comports with longstanding AAUP due process standards for proceedings that may result in severe sanctions.

   Log in to Reply

4. The resolution effectively justifies Professor Cheyfitz’s behavior. It fails to acknowledge his responsibility or recognize that his actions constitute a serious threat to academic freedom. I strongly urge all senators to reject this resolution.

   Log in to Reply