| The faculty opinions on this resolution ran the gamut from strong unconditional positive to equally strong rejection. But overall, the faculty felt it was necessary to make a statement about the critical importance of addressing sexual assault on campus, and a significant lack of confidence in the administration for actions over the past few months (but not necessarily in 2024). The authors of the resolution succeeded in their goal to avoid any substantive discussion of specific merits and actions by the administration, and in shifting the motion perception to the point that a negative vote would be viewed by the students and public as an acceptance of the status quo with respect to sexual assault on campus. Many of our faculty view the motion as travesty, but nonetheless recommended a yes vote as the lessor of two evils. It is my personal hope that the momentum created by disussion over the past few weeks will persist once the news cycle attention fades, and that Cornell can ultimately make some significant, but very difficult and challenging, progress on the underlying culture around sexual assault on campuses and in society. |
| My vote is based on the departmental faculty poll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I am voting on behalf of the DCS department. A qualitrics survey was distributed to the department, with approximately 70 responses (half of the department). After removing “duplicate” votes, there were 39 against, 12 abstain, and 13 yes votes. |
| I see my role as Senator as one that is meant to convey the majority view of those I represent. While there was well-reasoned support for the measure, the majority of my department’s members raised legitimate concerns that led them to vote No. The reasons given, both for and against, highlighted to me that though there may be disagreement over this resolution, there is much common ground that I hope will be built upon, regardless of the outcome of this vote. My fellow department Senator and I have decided to share a summary of all of our constituent’s thoughts, as we think there is value in understanding how these individual decisions were made. Yes Vote: Those department members voting Yes outlined multiple factors that led to their loss of confidence in the current administration. Here is a summary of the main viewpoints. • Lack of appropriate actions, lack of transparency in the information provided, and lack of accountability and responsibility do not provide confidence in the ability of the current administration to lead during the critical times ahead, nor be effective in resolving this crisis. • Slowness to act both in dealing with the 2024 allegations and in addressing public and student concerns. • Strong appearance of wanting to protect Cornell and the accused rather than the victim and rather than reassuring concerned students/parents/faculty with open and honest dialogue. • If the current administration were capable of managing the levels of sexual assault on campus, it would not take a national spotlight to get things accomplished. • A need for effective, systemic change. Systemic change requires sustained, longterm commitment that Cornell and other universities have had difficulty to maintain. Once media and public attention shift, leadership will inevitably revert to the status quo until the next crisis. • Reactive leadership hinders true reform. Formation of a task force on campus sexual assault shifts the responsibility to advisory groups that lack real administrative authority to enforce change. As a result, recommendations from task forces that are low-friction get completed, but high-resource, structural overhauls are delayed and diluted. • A need for moral leadership in this moment, not leadership that hides behind the fear of litigation. • To the trustees of Cornell University, listen to the faculty and give us a president who will bring Cornell to the international news for the right reasons. No Vote: Department members who voted No wanted to share the difficult and often conflicting opinions that surrounded their decision. Here is a summary of the main viewpoints. Acknowledgement of the ongoing crisis: • The behaviors and events at Chi Phi in 2024 are horrific. • As a community we failed Jane Doe before her assault and after her assault. And, as a community we need to work to ensure we address our failures. Any claim from a victim must be taken seriously. • There is no doubt that sexual assault is a critical and pressing issue for our community, and that change needs to occur at both a community and societal level. • Recognition and concerns that the efforts in response to the Chi Phi events may not have been sufficient, that missteps were made and that more needs to be done. • There needs to be trust that the criminal investigation and lawsuit will achieve the maximum possible for justice and accountability. • Support for accountability, meaningful reform, and strong support for survivors. Lack of sufficient evidence to make an informed decision: • The independent Yates investigation should be allowed to run its course and finish before conclusions are drawn about whether the administration acted appropriately or failed to do enough. A vote of no confidence before those findings are available risks assigning blame before the evidence has been fully evaluated. • There is no clear evidence that the administration mishandled sexual assault cases without a thorough review of the Title IX process. • Due to the rules and legalities around Title IX investigations, HIPPA, FERPA, and laws of NYS, the average faculty member does not have all the information to judge the mistakes and responsibilities of administrators. • The resolution is too vague; would rather it be specific about what we are not confident in. • Rush to judgement. Efforts are better directed elsewhere: • Direct efforts toward pursuing evidence-based reforms that strengthen prevention, accountability, reporting mechanisms, and support for survivors. • Focus on how these failures are to be addressed, effectively and quickly. • Let these events serve as an opportunity to help reform Title IX law rather than deposing our leaders. • Anything contributing to a sudden change in administration could be disruptive to the logistical momentum of truly and fully addressing this crisis. • Provides no constructive problem-solving and adds to the divisiveness and media frenzy. • After investigations are complete, it may be appropriate to call for a censure of the Cornell administrators where Cornell faculty can lead with critical self-evaluation and humility. Confidence in current administration: • The administration had taken steps in the right direction to address sexual assault on campus, such as establishing a task force and enhancing student education before the lawsuit. After the lawsuit, they have taken additional steps. • The central administration has tried to be communicative, transparent, and open to feedback throughout the process. The many town meetings, email communications, and chances for the community to speak out have made their efforts very clear. • Confidence that the administration will be able to address the ongoing crisis based on previous experience to navigate difficult situations since COVID (e.g., COVID pandemic, Israel-Palestine, freeze on federal funding). • Support for the Trustee’s decision for an independent, broad investigation of Cornell’s process and decisions, and confidence that this will be broad, independent and thorough. Prior to voting I consulted with my constituents and discussed this issue with faculty from other units at Cornell, and with undergraduate and post-graduate students, and with Cornell staff. Many of those individuals feel conflicted about this resolution, as do I. However, this is the issue the Senate has been asked to address. For me, failure to vote, or Abstention, would be an abdication of responsibility. Doug Antczak, CAPE |
| It’s unfortunate that those of us who have confidence in our a [incomplete comment] |
| I remain deeply conflicted about this resolution, but I have ultimately decided to vote “yes.†I want to join fellow faculty in sending a clear message to our students, alumni, the public, and the president, sexual assault and harassment on our campus cannot be tolerated. I do not believe university leadership has done enough to address these issues or take responsibility for institutional failings, and its response so far has not given me confidence that this will change. At the same time, I share the concern about the resolution’s use of “central administration.†That language is overly broad and risks implicating offices and staff, including hourly employees, who had no role in the issues prompting this vote. And I have concerns that this resolution does not have recommended actions. However, equal are my concerns are with the leaders responsible for the university’s decisions and response. My vote should also not be interpreted as a call for any individual’s resignation, particularly prior to the completion on the Yates investigation. Sexual assault and the failures of institutional responses are systemic problems across higher education in the US. That does not lessen Cornell’s responsibility to confront them. I want to see the same commitment to innovation and leadership that Cornell has demonstrated in addressing other major challenges, including COVID-19 and the future of higher education. I also expect our leaders to demonstrate empathy, humility, and a willingness to acknowledge and learn from failures, particularly when responding publicly to people who have experienced harm. |
| I am torn by this vote, as I wish to support Cornell’s students in their anguish over this incident and desire to do something positive, but feel that this resolution is premature and should await the results of the Yates enquiry already under way. |
The anonymous comments submitted by SCS faculty reflected diverse perspectives on the proposed resolution. While respondents generally recognized the seriousness of the Jane Doe case and the importance of institutional accountability and meaningful reforms, they expressed differing views regarding the resolution’s timing, scope, and potential effectiveness. Concerns about the pending Yates investigation, broad wording, and lack of clarity regarding specific outcomes were recurring themes. Conversely, supporters emphasized the importance of acknowledging the loss of confidence in university leadership and maintaining pressure for institutional change. Across the comments, there was a shared interest in improving campus safety, strengthening institutional accountability, rebuilding trust, and ensuring meaningful measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Three important observations emerged:
1. Accountability: Faculty want the University to take responsibility and demonstrate meaningful institutional improvements.
2. Approach: There are differing opinions about whether a vote of no confidence is the most effective mechanism for achieving accountability.
3. Outcomes: Faculty want tangible improvements in sexual assault prevention, campus safety, institutional transparency, and rebuilding trust within the Cornell community. |
| This is the majority vote of my constituents despite my different opinion. |
|
| I struggle with this vote- as I deeply want all of us to work together to improve this situation and acknowledge this moment and to listen to one another with care- my department voted YES by over 90 percent (it was not unanimous) – each vote of yes was accompanied by a thoughtful comment of conflict care purpose and commitment – I feel a yes is also an acknowledgment that we in the faculty can and should do better to respond to current events and situations that affect our students and our community and to support these processes. And to listen to one another. I polled our department twice as I wanted the vote I place to well articulate the department I represent. |
| The Veterinary College Faculty voted 63% No, 18% yes and 18% abstain. |
| My constituents have given serious consideration to this issue and have expressed their views in support of both Yes and No votes, as outlined below. While there was well-founded support for the resolution, a majority of them have raised reasonable concerns and do not support it. I vote No in accordance with the views of my constituents. Yes Vote: Those department members voting Yes outlined multiple factors that led to their loss of confidence in the current administration. Here is a summary of the main viewpoints. • Lack of appropriate actions, lack of transparency in the information provided, and lack of accountability and responsibility do not provide confidence in the ability of the current administration to lead during the critical times ahead, nor be effective in resolving this crisis. • Slowness to act both in dealing with the 2024 allegations and in addressing public and student concerns. • Strong appearance of wanting to protect Cornell and the accused rather than the victim and rather than reassuring concerned students/parents/faculty with open and honest dialogue. • If the current administration were capable of managing the levels of sexual assault on campus, it would not take a national spotlight to get things accomplished. • A need for effective, systemic change. Systemic change requires sustained, long-term commitment that Cornell and other universities have had difficulty to maintain. Once media and public attention shift, leadership will inevitably revert to the status quo until the next crisis. • Reactive leadership hinders true reform. Formation of a task force on campus sexual assault shifts the responsibility to advisory groups that lack real administrative authority to enforce change. As a result, recommendations from task forces that are low-friction get completed, but high-resource, structural overhauls are delayed and diluted. • A need for moral leadership in this moment, not leadership that hides behind the fear of litigation. • To the trustees of Cornell University, listen to the faculty and give us a president who will bring Cornell to the international news for the right reasons. No Vote: Department members who voted No, wanted to share the difficult and often conflicting opinions that surrounded their decision. Here is a summary of the main viewpoints. Acknowledgment of the ongoing crisis: • The behaviors and events at Chi Phi in 2024 are horrific. • As a community we failed Jane Doe before her assault and after her assault. And, as a community we need to work to ensure we address our failures. Any claim from a victim must be taken seriously. • There is no doubt that sexual assault is a critical and pressing issue for our community, and that change needs to occur at both a community and societal level. • Recognition and concerns that the efforts in response to the Chi Phi events may not have been sufficient, that missteps were made and that more needs to be done. • There needs to be trust that the criminal investigation and lawsuit will achieve the maximum possible for justice and accountability. • Support for accountability, meaningful reform, and strong support for survivors. Lack of sufficient evidence to make an informed decision: • The independent Yates investigation should be allowed to run its course and finish before conclusions are drawn about whether the administration acted appropriately or failed to do enough. A vote of no confidence before those findings are available risks assigning blame before the evidence has been fully evaluated. • There is no clear evidence that the administration mishandled sexual assault cases without a thorough review of the Title IX process. • Due to the rules and legalities around Title IX investigations, HIPPA, FERPA, and laws of NYS, the average faculty member does not have all the information to judge the mistakes and responsibilities of administrators. • The resolution is too vague; would rather it be specific about what we are not confident in. • Rush to judgement. Efforts are better directed elsewhere: • Direct efforts toward pursuing evidence-based reforms that strengthen prevention, accountability, reporting mechanisms, and support for survivors. • Focus on how these failures are to be addressed, effectively and quickly. • Let these events serve as an opportunity to help reform Title IX law rather than deposing our leaders. • Anything contributing to a sudden change in administration could be disruptive to the logistical momentum of truly and fully addressing this crisis. • Provides no constructive problem-solving and adds to the divisiveness and media frenzy. • After investigations are complete, it may be appropriate to call for a censure of the Cornell administrators where Cornell faculty can lead with critical self-evaluation and humility. Confidence in current administration: • The administration had taken steps in the right direction to address sexual assault on campus, such as establishing a task force and enhancing student education before the lawsuit. After the lawsuit, they have taken additional steps. • The central administration has tried to be communicative, transparent, and open to feedback throughout the process. The many town meetings, email communications, and chances for the community to speak out have made their efforts very clear. • Confidence that the administration will be able to address the ongoing crisis based on previous experience to navigate difficult situations since COVID (e.g., COVID pandemic, Israel-Palestine, freeze on federal funding). • Support for the Trustee’s decision for an independent, broad investigation of Cornell’s process and decisions, and confidence that this will be broad, independent and thorough. |
| During the Faculty Senate meeting, I felt that the discussion at times conflated several broader issues with the specific matter addressed by the no-confidence resolution. More importantly, I was concerned by the brevity and lack of specificity in the resolution itself, which, in my view, carries significant unintended implications. The resolution did not clearly identify the specific failures or shortcomings that motivated the vote, nor did it distinguish between the offices and individuals directly responsible for handling the sexual assault crisis and the broader central administration. Ultimately, I voted in favor of the resolution. This was not an easy decision. I found myself weighing two imperfect choices: voting in favor of a broadly worded resolution whose implications I did not fully endorse, or voting against the only no-confidence resolution before us, despite my genuine concerns about the handling of this crisis. I felt an obligation to vote in accordance with my convictions on the underlying issue, and therefore voted in favor. However, I want to be unequivocally clear about the scope and meaning of my vote: 1. My vote of no confidence pertains exclusively to the handling and management of the sexual assault crisis at Cornell University. It should not be interpreted as a broader expression of no confidence in the university’s administration or its work on unrelated matters.
2. My vote is directed only at those offices and individuals within the central administration who bear direct responsibility for handling and managing this crisis. It is not a vote of no confidence in the central administration as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
| 40% of my constituents provided their vote via a Qualtrics poll or via direct email. Only about 1/3 of those voting opposed the resolution of no confidence. As the parent of a recent Cornell female undergraduate whose sorority failed to provide a safe and protective community, as a former faculty-in-residence who witnessed the traumatic impact of rush and partying on students, as an educator confronting on a daily basis the increasingly fragile mental health of our students, I have concluded that Cornell needs decisive and compassionate leadership to break through the cultural mesmerism that discounts and obfuscates the enormous harms done by sexual violence and substance abuse. The current central administration is not capable of such leadership. |
| I would have preferred a more detailed resolution that enumerated specific inappropriate actions/inactions, but on the whole I agree that I do not have confidence in the central administration’s ability to effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at the university. After communicating with my constituents, my vote of “yes” on the resolution reflects the significant majority opinion of that group. |
|
|
|
|
| My faculty consider sexual assault a first order problem at Cornell and at our peer institutions. It stands out as a rare crime that is higher on campuses than among men and women of college age that are not in college. My faculty hopes the Yates report might go beyond the specifics of the Jane Doe case to what are the root causes here and elsewhere. We should act on this information. Many of my faculty believe our policies and procedures likely need change but in a fast-moving world how to change things is unclear. We applaud the move to allow victims to choose the channel through which their case will be handled. There is some unease with this vote as we do not know if there was a failure of the administration to protect students but at this time it is not obvious that there was. |
|
|
|
| About two thirds of our faculty supported the resolution. Those in favor believe that Cornell can and should lead the way in meaningful structural and cultural change, but they question whether such change is possible under the current central administration. They believe that holding the administration accountable, even symbolically through a vote of no confidence, is an important part of advocating for such change. Those opposed to the resolution preferred to reserve judgment until the independent investigation is complete. Despite their differing positions on the resolution, our faculty agreed that we have an important role to play in addressing this ongoing crisis and that the administration must recognize, use, and invest in faculty expertise. Faculty who work on these issues expressed frustration that their knowledge, contributions, and outreach to administration have repeatedly been sidelined or ignored, and they fear that this pattern will continue once the media spotlight fades. |
| Our department has mixed feelings, and being data driven, we would like to know more of the details (who knew what, when, etc.). We don’t want to paint a broad stroke that all administrators were negligent and also feel like Cornell PD and the local law enforcement agencies have responsibility here, but this all said, we believe it is important for our students to make a statement that we hear them and want change. A show of empathy that we have not seen from our administrators. |
|
|
| I vote no confidence to indicate my strong dissatisfaction with how the administration has responded to the case of Jane Doe. My vote also reflects the opinions of my colleagues in my department, 100% of those have been in agreement with my vote. I am not passing judgement on whether members of the administration should resign or make a significant course correction in how they interact with the Cornell community and the wider world, but voting “no confidence” sends the message we need at this time. |
| I am appalled by the lack of specificity in this resolution. It seems almost designed to let people vote for it without agreeing on why. The Senate debate has clarified my understanding of “central administration” to mean principally President Kotlikoff. After consulting with my constituency, I have come to believe that a change in presidential leadership could enable progress. Rightly or wrongly, the president now casts a shadow over the university’s response. Someone unconnected to the failures under scrutiny could be better positioned to begin rebuilding trust. Even if the Yates review ultimately finds no personal wrongdoing on his part, stepping aside at this moment could still be a way “to do the greatest good.†But this no-confidence vote will not itself make students safer. Concrete action must follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| While our department colleagues have expressed serious concerns about of the administration’s response and the media’s representation of the issues, the current resolution lacks the detail needed to support an informed vote. A vote against this resolution should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the administration’s response or a lack of solidarity with students and fellow faculty; we would like to express our sincere concern that with a vote of “noâ€, the wrong message will be sent to our students and community. We stand with our students and support meaningful accountability and concrete action to prevent sexual assault and improve safety on our campus. To this end, we encourage a resolution that explicitly affirms this support and commits us to constructive action, consistent with the newly proposed resolution recently presented, “A Sustained Faculty Commitment to Preventing Sexual Violence.†|
|
|
|
|
| It is hard to vote no confidence “in the ability of the central administration to effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell University” without knowing all the relevant facts. A proposal to wait until more information became available was voted down by the Faculty Senate. As a result, Faculty Senators are being asked to caste a vote of no confidence without the information needed to make an informed decision. We teach our students to evaluate evidence before drawing conclusions. This is a poor example to set for them. |
|
|
|
|
| I polled my constituents, and the responses were evenly split. Those who voted against the resolution expressed a desire to wait until the Yates investigation is complete before taking further action. I deeply sympathize with all those who have suffered greatly as a result of this event and believe that meaningful campus reforms are needed. I recognize that this resolution signals support for our students and faculty, I also feel that as faculty, we must work together to bring about meaningful changes rather than pointing fingers at one another. |
|
| Not waiting for the external review was not a good practice. Without clear information, I feel compelled to vote no. |
| I am reflecting the majority vote on this issue posed to my department. I would personally vote differently. |
| While our department colleagues (Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences) have expressed serious concerns about of the administration’s response and the media’s representation of the issues, the current resolution lacks the detail needed to support an informed vote. A vote against this resolution should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the administration’s response or a lack of solidarity with students and fellow faculty; we would like to express our sincere concern that with a vote of “noâ€, the wrong message will be sent to our students and community. We stand with our students and support meaningful accountability and concrete action to prevent sexual assault and improve safety on our campus. To this end, we encourage a resolution that explicitly affirms this support and commits us to constructive action, consistent with the newly proposed resolution recently presented, “A Sustained Faculty Commitment to Preventing Sexual Violence.†|
| This resolution is very poorly written. It does not even attempt to define “central administration†(and so senators with different interpretations of the term will literally be voting on different things), nor does it include any rationale describing errors of omission or commission made by the “central administration†(however that term is defined). Absent both a rationale and a clear definition of the target of the “no confidence†vote makes it impossible to know what we are voting on or why. There are two ongoing independent investigations that will hopefully shed a great deal more light on any possible mistakes made by the “central administration†related to the “Jane Doe†case in particular and the sexual assault crisis at Cornell in general. This resolution is therefore premature and voting should take place contingent on the findings of both independent investigations. Simply put, voting now is a rush to judgment. President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala (a very narrow definition of the term “central administrationâ€) have done a solid job navigating Cornell through the myriad crises we have faced during the last several years. They have earned both trust and confidence in their ability to effectively deal with the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell. This confidence may change after the independent investigations are complete, which only serves to underscore the importance of the second point…it is too soon for this vote. |
| Very few people know EXACTLY what happened, and I would like to see real facts regarding this besides survey percentages based on minimal respondants, and a slew of biased articles from both sides. The only thoughtful analysis came from a Slate article by Hanna Statland who identified the persistent and pervasive drug and alcohol problems on college campuses and the critical part it played in this case. Let’s get some real facts before we scapegoat a President who has worked to maintain sanity at this university for some time. |
|
|
| The repression, inaction, lack of accountability, and culture of toxic masculinity surrounding sexual harassment, misconduct, and assault on our campus – perpetuated by Cornell’s central administration – must finally be held to account. |
|
| I vote no since the majority of my department is not in favor of this resolution. However, I understand the frustration and if it is up to me, I will probably vote yes. |
|
|
|
|
| I don’t find criticism without advice constructive. |
| I have received more than 30 emails from students, from various units across campus, and I have spoken with many others. Every student I have heard from has expressed support for the vote of no confidence. They cite not only the administration’s handling of the Jane Doe case, but also problems with handling the allegations at Weill medical. This is deeply troubling. When students lose trust in the very administration responsible for their well-being, it erodes the sense of trust and community that lies at the heart of Cornell. Students have called for change, and are encouraging faculty to stand by them. For these reasons, I support the proposed resolution of no confidence. |
|
|
| As an MAE senator, I attended senate discussions on October 14 and 18. I also conducted an anonymous online survey to collect my colleagues’ votes on the no-confidence motion. Of the 27 respondents, 10 voted No, 8 voted Yes, and 9 opted to wait until the completion of the Yates report. While the majority does not support the current motion, we strongly urge the university administration to take immediate and concrete steps, well before the conclusion of the Yates investigation, to repair the systemic flaws, implement new policies, and work together with faculty and students in order to build a healthy and safe campus for all. The university can and must do better. Jane Wang, MAE Senator. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| We had the opportunity to conduct an investigation before passing judgement. We did not. We had an opportunity to use persuasion rather than fear to solicit a desired outcome. We did not. We have shown that critical thinking and due process are only for people whom we agree with. Regardless of result, this vote says far more about the Faculty Senate than it does about university administration. May our students learn to be wiser than we are, and may those who read this resolution in the future give it the respect and attention it is due. |
|
|
|
| I feel that this vote is premature, and should be conducted only after the investigation led by Sally Yates is concluded. The results of that incestigation will inform us if there were any steps that should have been taken by the administration, or any serious lapses of judgement. In the absence of such evidence I can not support the current resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
| I have gone back and forth on this,, have consulted my constituents, and have changed my mind based at least partly on discussions at Senate meetings. My Yes vote is reluctant to say the least. |
| We need leadership, not figureheads who stay the course for an appearance of competence. Students should feel safe to come forward; parents should have confidence that their children will be protected; survivors should be able to sleep at night knowing they won’t be sharing spaces with their rapists; alumni should know that their beloved school and their ongoing support is going toward a better university. The urgency here is due to unconscionable rates of sexual assault on campus, and the impotent remedies our administration has taken to sanction and deter future assaults. |
| This vote represents the expression of 77% of the faculty in my department, |
|
| I was disappointed by the aggressive zoom chat comments during the Oct 28 meeting. One senator spoke a couple of times and made points the “pro-no confidence” senators (or faculty) on zoom were against. Comments were made promoting doxxing the senator, along the lines of “Who was that guy speaking just now”. It was more than a little uncomfortable for me. And, I hope the form letters from students will stop soon. |
|
| There is an ongoing crisis and an upward trend of sexual assault at Cornell. This crisis demonstrates a systemic problem that must be addressed in a systemic way. However, the Cornell central administration has not done this. President Kotlikoff has been president or provost of Cornell for 11 years. During this time, the central administration’s responses have been reactive rather than proactive. The central administration has reacted to pressure from public reports about specific cases and media pressure, rather than showing leadership in addressing a systemic crisis with systemic institutional change. |
Our department voted against the resolution as written because it lacked specificity. If it had been specified President Kotlikoff, instead of central administration, we would have supported it. While we appreciate the concerns that were raised about the systemic nature of sexual violence on this campus and hence implicating more than just President Kotlikoff, we fear that a blanket resolution is too vague to be impactful. Moreover, there are faculty and staff in central administration who are doing good work and should not be implicated in such a vote.
That said, we are particularly disheartened by the lack of moral leadership we have seen in recent weeks. Several in our department have signed the letter that argued (chronicle.brightspotcdn.com/68/6a/f15615714911bbc646181f008946/letter-to-bot-final.pdf) that the lack of meaningful action to say that the Chi Phi events were morally and ethically wrong in no uncertain terms has led us to a crisis of legitimacy. For many of us faculty, working at Cornell is our dream job. We are so proud to be a part of this amazing university and believe deeply in its mission. The shame we have felt over the mishandling of the recent events is heartbreaking. We needed someone to stand up and say that Cornell cares about survivors, that we will no longer stand for sexual violence, and we will bring change. Our faculty, staff, students and alumni needed to hear that in no uncertain terms. This was the job of the president. But instead we got deflections and “damage controlâ€. We deserve better. |
|
| The Psychology department voted internally and my vote is a reflection of their overall sentiment. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thank you for the reasoned deliberations on this resolution. |
|
|
|
| The resolution lacks specificity. |
|
|
| I have consulted extensively with my colleagues in the department, as well as taken a formal poll. A majority (77%) of the colleagues in our department did not agree with the proposal as written, and they supported a postponement of the vote on this resolution until after the Yates Review, so they we could make an informed judgement about the culpability of the administration – who, when, and how – in order to do better. My colleagues clearly stated that, if a postponement of the resolution did not pass, then they would want to vote “no” on the resolution (77% would vote no; 23% would vote yes). To clarify: In no way does this vote against the resolution signal a vote FOR the administration; it simply means that more information is needed before a final decision is made. In addition, in no way does this vote against the resolution signal that do we not support Jane Doe. In fact, our department strongly supports Jane Doe and stands with and by all victims of sexual violence. We have talked with our students, in and outside of class; we have held extra sessions; we have modified our classes, exams and homework, knowing how traumatic this experience is. We strongly stand with Jane Doe, and we support her. We with the resolution had actually reflected this support, and made specific mention of her, and of the ways in which the Administration, Title IX program, and New York State Law have failed her, amongst countless other women. |
|
|
|
|
| I am voting in favor of the resolution because the majority of the faculty in my Dept voted in favor. My personal opinion is that expressed so clearly in today’s Sun by Brian Crane, and his colleagues in Chemistry. |
I support this resolution because it is a starting place. Not a false apology, slow-moving task force, or settlement payout. It says: we have a problem that needs solving.
As the next step, we must think strategically about changes to the systems like Title IX sanctions, Greek life & hazing, victim-centered investigation practices, and investment in evidence-based prevention measures. I look forward to working with my colleagues who are experts in these areas to put forth proposals to improve Cornell.
As a proud Cornellian, I want to see my alma mater, employer, and major part of my community be the best it can be. One might even say: “do the greatest good.”
What Jane Doe’s case has revealed are the many ways that the university failed in this respect. We saw conflicts of interest in the handling of both criminal and Title IX matters by internal Cornell departments that ultimately report to administrators whose primary focus is on maintaining relationships with funders and the bottom line, rather than student wellbeing.
We have heard from countless student survivors about these systemic failures, while also hearing about protections for the Greek system, influential men, and the University’s reputation over everything else.
Regardless of the reactive steps that the administration is taking now to try and staunch the bleeding, it is clear that their actions are too little, too late.
We need a fresh start. This can only happen by acknowledging where things went wrong. We need to hold our leadership accountable so that they can take a good hard look at their missteps and declare to the world that Cornell will do better. Let’s rebuild our University together.
I grieve for Jane Doe, whose life is never going to be the same after her sexual assault at Cornell in October 2024. I hope that her lawsuit, the publicity around the case, and outpouring of faculty and student support for changes to campus culture result in substantive changes to how we address power and acts of violence between members of the campus community.
As I sat through the faculty senate meeting on October 28, I could not help but feel even sadder: sad about the frequent applause that broke out when one side delivered a decisive point about sexual assault, the rush of adrenaline that some felt when a vote on a motion was concluded (we won!), the comments in the chat and interruptions about who could vote or speak (including whether a former dean and retired faculty member had the right to speak in a senate meeting). These moments diminished the gravity of the moment.
I have been a complainant in two Title IX complaints in my time in higher education; there are few victories nor is there much occasion for applause. I didn’t walk away from either situation feeling that there had been any winners. Title IX is narrow in its purview and much of the violence we inflict against each other is not captured by any policy. The range of everyday violence (interrupting, hectoring, hazing, bullying, condescension, elitism) that marks our classrooms, libraries, labs, department meetings, and student residencies cannot be easily done away with. We saw that yesterday.
Thus, it was all the more saddening that in a debate about power, some participants on zoom posted comments that I read as bullying those who spoke authentically and honestly. I saw faculty in the room point at the screen at those who were not senators and thus not supposed to vote: the sight of a tenured colleague pointing at an RTE faculty (implying that this person had forgotten their place) is not one I will easily forget.
I hope there is a positive purpose from the momentum in the room, I hope the energy and commitment that we share for substantive change doesn’t fade away once the vote on the resolution is over. We have a lot of work to do.
Dear Colleagues,
Sexual violence threatens our students’ safety, their education, and their trust in this university. This Senate owes them a response equal to the seriousness of that harm.
Our voice carries weight. When we make a judgment this consequential, we should state clearly what has failed and what we expect to change.
This resolution falls short of that standard. It does not articulate the specific failures underlying its judgment or the consequences it seeks. It leaves each of us to supply our own reasons and imagine our own remedies. We could adopt the same words without agreeing on what we mean or what we demand.
I hope the Senate can help engender a sustained faculty commitment to confronting sexual violence. That means acting on what we already know: helping students reach support, strengthening our ability to respond when they disclose an assault, and participating in prevention efforts. It means listening to students, drawing on existing research, and evaluating whether our efforts work. And it means investing in scholarship that can deepen our understanding and guide lasting change.
I oppose this resolution because it leaves the basis and purpose of our collective judgment unclear.
Chris B. Schaffer
Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering
You write that the resolution “leaves each of us to supply our own reasons and imagine our own remedies. We could adopt the same words without agreeing on what we mean or what we demand.” This is true. The resolution is a statement of principle rather than a concrete policy proposal. Proponents believe the statement of principle is a vital step toward building a movement and vision strong enough to enact powerful change down the line. This is not an unusual process in the history of political action: craft a message, rally people around the message, build a movement, *then* debate and enact new policies. The more you want to contest the status quo, the more important it is not to try to skip all the steps that lead to new policies.
Here are some other statements of principle:
“Any person, any study.”
“To do the greatest good.”
“All men are created equal.”
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité.”
As you point out, such statements are designedly broad. “We could adopt the same words without agreeing on what we mean.” That is by design. Principled statements are meant to rally people to a cause. To highlight the cause itself. To highlight the need for urgent action. To build momentum, ethical commitment, a community of shared concern. Such statements are not meant to split the vote as people debate what, exactly, is meant by “any person, any study.”
I can’t fathom why, as a general principle, one would insist that every resolution in the faculty senate be technocratic rather than principled. Technocratic work needs to be done; the next resolution(s) can tackle those tasks, as have many resolutions prior. It need not be the case that only one kind of resolution exist.
Sometimes, we need to debate our principles and make a statement of principle. To unite behind principle. Movements for structural reform or revolution need big ideas and unifying narratives. As you noted, we will not all agree on everything as we embrace those ideas and narratives. But we can commit to a new storyline and pledge ourselves to new principles. In this case, that commitment is overdue.