| 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. |
This resolution is poorly justified, premature, and performative providing no constructive solutions. The sensible thing to do would be to model calm and patience to our community and beyond, and wait for the findings of the Sally Yates’ investigation. Voting to not hear from the Co-Chair of the Task Force on Sexual Assault and Director of the SHARE office at the last Senate meeting sends a symbolic message of the tone of the Faculty Senate, that individuals are often more interested in complaining and grandstanding than listening and having meaningful discussion with the people who are trying to do the work of fixing a complex problem.
We can stand with survivors of sexual assault, want Cornell to be a safer place, and vote no to this resolution.
Several comments have cited the 2025 survey figures, and Cornell’s own task force cautioned that a 15% response rate makes those estimates uncertain. But the longer record is the more damning one. In 2015, the first survey Cornell took part in found 23% of undergraduate women reporting nonconsensual sexual contact. In 2023, with a 36% response rate, the figure was again 23%. For a decade, nothing changed. We do not need the 2025 numbers to be precise to know this is a crisis. It is also, by national surveys, a crisis on nearly every residential campus in the country. That is not a comfort. It is part of the problem. Numbers that look like everyone else’s stop alarming anyone, and that is how complacency takes hold.
Here is what I keep returning to. Every one of those surveys was published. Every one was emailed to this community and reported in the Sun. The data were not hidden from faculty; they were delivered to us, every two years, for ten years. We are faculty. We spend our careers weighing evidence and teaching others to act on it, and this data has been flat for a decade. So before I ask what the administration did with those numbers, I have to ask what I did with them. I have been on this faculty for more than twenty years. I read those reports, and I care deeply about this issue. It is disheartening to admit that I still did nothing with them, because the numbers looked like the numbers everywhere, and the work in front of me was pressing, and I assumed someone else was handling it.
I do not think that was indifference, in me or in anyone. I think it is what prevalence this high does to a community. By the CDC’s numbers, roughly one in four or five women has experienced a completed or attempted rape in her lifetime, and well over a third have experienced unwanted sexual contact. Many men carry this too. That means this is not only a story about students. It is woven through this faculty, this Senate, and the lives of people we work beside every day, many of whom have carried it quietly for years. When something touches that many lives, it stops being an emergency and becomes the background of everyone’s life, including the lives of those of us charged with governing this place. That is what complacency looks like from the inside. It is not that we did not care. It is the quiet assumption that this is someone else’s job.
But shared governance means it is also ours. This Senate exists to give faculty a voice in how this university is governed. It can request reports, demand data, set standing agendas and insist on answers. It has taken up sexual misconduct policy more than once over those years, mostly as it applies to faculty. But I do not remember us ever taking up those student survey results as a matter of our own business. If we are going to render a verdict on the administration for failing to act on numbers it published, we should first ask whether we are willing to render the same verdict on ourselves.
I understand the pull of this resolution. What happened to Jane Doe is horrifying, and there is a deep and decent need to respond, to show her and every student like her that we did something. But I would ask my colleagues to be honest about what this particular something is. A vote of no confidence, as its own supporters acknowledge, will remove no one from office. It will not add a single advocate, change a single fraternity, or make a single student safer. What it will do is name a culprit. And I worry that naming a culprit will feel like accountability, to all of us, and let us off the hook for the harder work that still needs to be done. A decade of flat data can survive a vote of no confidence. It cannot survive a faculty that refuses to look away.
The record also does not support the suggestion that the administration acted only when the press arrived. The task force was created in February 2025, with faculty on it. Its recommendations were published in March 2026, and an implementation committee was at work before the lawsuit was filed. Since then, fraternity social events have been suspended, independent State Police investigators engaged, victim advocates added beyond the task force’s recommendations, and a case manager appointed for those who report. Much of this came too late. I do not minimize that. But the question before us is what serves our students now, and these steps are happening.
So I propose an alternative, one that asks something of us. The Senate should seek a seat at the table in implementing the task force’s recommendations. It should request a formal report on that implementation by the end of the spring semester. And it should review each biennial survey as a standing order of business, with the administration present to answer for the numbers, and with us present to answer for what we have done since the last one. That is accountability we can enforce ourselves, and it begins with us.
I know colleagues who will vote for this resolution are doing so out of real grief and real conviction. I share both. I only ask that we direct them somewhere they can do lasting good. Please vote against this resolution, and vote instead for the harder work that might change the next survey.
Gretchen Schoeffler, DVM, DACVECC
Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine
Re: one of your final points: The taskforce was set to address us last week.
Faculty role in implementing the Sexual Assault Task Force recommendations – Rachel Dunifon, Rebecca Q. and James C. Morgan Dean Cornell Human Ecology; Chair, Sexual Assault Task Force
Senate
4:15-4:30 p.m.
Ways faculty can support students – Laura Weiss, Director of Sexual Harassment & Assault—Response & Education (SHARE) office
Senate
4:30 p.m.
We voted to remove them from the agenda to preserve time to address this resolution. We didn’t allow the pertinent officers a 15 minute block to address us and 15 minutes to answer our questions. The seat was open for us, held out for us, and we refused to sit in it.
Talk about symbolic measures.
I read the proposal and, having spent 6 years in the Faculty Senate, recognize many of the names (I thought there were term limits!) as representing the senators who were perpetually aggrieved. The basic problem? In my experience the “central administration” was largely dismissive of shared governance, even in areas where the rules of the road certainly suggested a role for the faculty, except in the most trivial of circumstances.
My read is that this proposal is meant to largely address that broad frustration; the discussion in the Senate meeting seemed to largely be derivative from the treatment of the encampments on campus over the past few years.
The Jane Doe case is–first and foremost–appalling. Clearly showing that there are corners of the university which are seriously out of touch with reasonable standards of humanity. But how the fault for it being appalling, and for the unlikelihood of achieving “justice”, is rightfully divided, is also quite unclear. The role of “the university” or of “the administration” in leading to the awful outcome is quite indirect, and can’t really justify the unclear censure that this proposal asks the faculty to provide.
On the other hand it does get a large number of loud voices exposure in the mainstream media.
I think a lot less talking is advisable.
Response to Professor Manne’s NYTmes article:
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I am a retired Cornell professor and completely agree with you, including your recommendation that we ban the frats. I would add “…and sororities” because it is also clear that women’s societies aren’t functioning in a healthier way. Clearly, Jane Doe was living in a group that encouraged extremely heavy drinking, and clearly some sorority sisters knew what had happened chose not to report it. The right answer has to start with shutting down this toxic, physically dangerous system.
Personally, I would go further. It seems to me that individuals complicit in these behaviors (including failure to report) should be expelled. Those guilty of active participation should lose their Cornell degrees — and if a degree has already been issued by the time a matter is adjudicated, we should revoke it after the fact, as if the expulsion had been prompt (leaving credits earned on the transcript).
Punishments with extreme personal consequences would convey the extreme nature of these infractions and help deter these horrendous crimes.
Rapes occur in situations where the university lacks direct control. Rather than pretend that a lack of moral leadership from our senior administrators is at fault, we need to acknowledge that the root cause is the failure of the frat/sorority culture. Whatever was true in the past, that culture has become toxic.
I want to begin by being unequivocal: sexual assault at Cornell is a serious problem, and the experiences reported by our students demand action, accountability, and sustained institutional change. The 2025 SARM findings are deeply concerning, particularly the experiences reported by undergraduate women and Greek-affiliated women. None of my concerns about this resolution should be interpreted as minimizing those findings or the harm survivors experienced.
Nevertheless, I cannot support this resolution as currently written.
A vote of no confidence is an extraordinarily serious statement about leadership. If we are going to make that statement as a faculty, I believe we have an obligation to be equally serious about the evidence on which we base it. The resolution says that we have no confidence in the ability of “central administration” to address sexual assault, but it does not define whom that term includes, identify the specific actions or failures for which those individuals are being held responsible, or state what outcome this resolution is intended to achieve.
I am also troubled by the way some of the evidence has been characterized in this discussion. The 2025 SARM results are alarming and should absolutely drive action. But the survey had a 15% overall response rate and a 13% undergraduate response rate, which Cornell’s own task force specifically cautioned limits our ability to estimate prevalence and interpret changes over time. That does not mean we dismiss the findings. It means that, as researchers and educators, we describe the evidence accurately while taking the problem seriously.
I also do not think it is accurate to suggest that Cornell began addressing this issue only after the recent lawsuit and media attention. President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala established the Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault in February 2025. Cornell has said that discussions about creating that task force began during the previous semester. The task force spent months reviewing research, data, peer-institution practices, and community input, and issued its final recommendations in March 2026. That work does not mean Cornell has done enough, and it certainly does not mean every decision has been correct. But it is relevant evidence when we are being asked to conclude that this administration is incapable of leading further change.
The same distinction matters in the 2024 Chi Phi case. There are very serious questions that deserve independent examination. At the same time, the public record shows that Cornell conducted university investigations, imposed disciplinary sanctions and barred the Chi Phi chapter from campus. Decisions about criminal prosecution were the responsibility of the district attorney, not Cornell.
We now have independent reviews underway precisely to determine where institutional systems, decisions, and individuals may have failed. I want those investigations to be rigorous. I want their findings made as transparent as the law permits. And if those findings show leadership failures that warrant a vote of no confidence, I would support faculty in considering that evidence and acting accordingly.
But accountability should follow evidence; it should not substitute for it.
I am particularly uncomfortable being asked to declare that an undefined group of administrators is incapable of addressing this problem before we have the findings of investigations designed to answer many of the questions now being debated. Waiting for those findings is not the same thing as accepting the status quo. We can demand immediate improvements in prevention, survivor support, reporting, investigation, Greek-life oversight and accountability while simultaneously reserving judgment about individual or institutional leadership until we know more.
In fact, Cornell should not wait to improve student safety, and it has not. The university has already announced additional measures, while the independent review proceeds.
Finally, I worry about what this resolution accomplishes. The Dean of Faculty has clarified that it carries no binding consequence. If our objective is meaningful systemic change, I would much rather see the Faculty Senate use its collective expertise to articulate specific deficiencies, measurable reforms, timelines, accountability structures, and expectations for leadership. That would give the administration, and the Cornell community something concrete against which progress could be measured.
Sexual assault deserves far more from us than a symbolic vote.
We owe survivors urgency. We owe students safety. We owe the Cornell community accountability. And we also owe them all careful, evidence-based decision-making.
For those reasons, I cannot support the resolution as written. I would support postponing the vote, completing the independent reviews, and returning to this question with specific findings, clearly identified responsibilities, and concrete expectations for change.
In an era in which reactive responses seem to be the unfortunate norm, it would serve the Cornell faculty well to set a good example of thoughtful decision-making and get all of the information possible about this situation before pursuing a vote of no confidence in the administration. As others have expressed already, it may turn out that a vote of no confidence in the administration is deserved, but it also may not. How can one make an educated vote at this time without having as many of the unbiased facts as possible?
Advocating for a delay in this vote/shelfing the motion for now does not mean that the Cornell faculty should be content with inaction or wait for years for the facts to come out; fortunately, the pace at which various investigations are going suggests that timely information is coming soon.
Advocating for a delay in this vote/shelfing the motion for now should also not be misconstrued as a lack of support for all victims of sexual assault that have any connection to Cornell or a lack of strong interest in improving the university’s policies, procedures, culture, etc.
What happened was a disgrace. One fraternity friend in particular clearly understood that, later and there’s lots of shame to spread around. Legal questions aside, a cascading stream of norms and responsibilities failed dismally: obviously, but not least, basic male human decency, but also an under-monitored fraternity, under-trained campus police, possibly under-focused university Title IX investigators, and an under-attentive district attorney probably grappling with absurd New York State consent laws. In any case, our notions of consent do seem messed up. All that said, I cannot fathom trying to shortcut a careful investigation, seeking a hasty fix for a diffuse, complex and entrenched mess. While presumably a motion with good intent, supporting the performative baying for the senior administration’s blood that this statement represents would be a distraction and a mistake.
Responding to the arguments against this resolution:
This resolution is not grounded in just what the proposed investigation will find. It is motivated by the failure of this administration to act substantively to address sexual assault on Cornell’s campus in the decade it has been in power. Therefore, whether or not the investigation finds fault with Cornell’s processes in this case, this administration by its past behavior has not inspired confidence that it can lead us now.
For anyone who wants whereas clauses in the resolution, these statistics have already been presented. To put them in whereas clauses does nothing to change what we all know, but I suggest them in this form for emphasis:
WHEREAS, the 2025 Cornell survey on sexual assault and related misconduct found that 35% of undergraduate women and 52% of those in Greek life have experienced sexual assault at Cornell.
WHEREAS, this trend has increased steadily since 2021.
WHEREAS, in the last two years, Cornell has invested in only one victim advocate position to cover nearly 30,000 students.
WHEREAS, after over a decade in power, this administration is only now ready to take the “first steps toward systemic change” in preventing sexual assault on campus or support survivors.
WHEREAS, as an example of weak administration response to sexual assault on campus, the policy of requiring sober monitors at fraternity parties has failed repeatedly as shown in the fact that the so-called sober monitor at the party on the night of the assault was one of the drunken assailants of Jane Doe.
WHEREAS, a drug arrest at the Chi Phi house less than a day before Jane Doe’s assault was not enough for the administration to pull the permit for the party at which Jane Doe was assaulted.
WHEREAS, an investigation of this incident alone will not reveal the depth of the failures of this administration to address the systemic nature of sexual assault on the Cornell campus during its tenure.
There are more possibilities for whereas clauses, but would any of these facts be enough for those who want us to wait to ask for administrative accountability, yet again?
Now, this administration says “we must do better”!
These are words from an administration engaged in calculated self-preservation. Their neglect of sexual assault has brought us to this moment: the brutal sexual assault of Jane Doe! The international branding of Cornell as an elite university that tolerates a culture of rape.
Now, this administration speaks as if they haven’t been in charge since long before this incident. Their tepid responses to scores of sexual assaults reported on this campus during their tenure (over 1200 from 2018-2024, alone) have brought us here.
Now as a reaction to the firestorm of bad press, they are ready to take “first steps toward systemic change.”
If they haven’t “done better” before now, how can any reasonable person have confidence that they are the right people to “do better,” now. A vote of no confidence from the Faculty Senate will not remove them from power. It will say we stand with our students in stating that we have no confidence that they CAN do better now.
Please support the resolution!
Had the administration come out and acknowledged their failure and demonstrated true leadership to advance genuine (not symbolic) change from the very start, we could be moving in a more productive direction. But the challenge is that the Administration did not do this (and when they finally started to, it was because they were forced to respond to criticism in the media). That and these are deep-seated problems that have been ongoing on campus that have not be adequately resolved under President and then Provost Kotlikoff (he has been in these two roles for c. ten years). So there is a need to adequately address the systemic problem through system change. But I am concerned that this will not happen under current administrative leadership. I am not calling for administrators’ removal. But I am calling for a recognition that any response up to now has been inadequate and therefore requires foundational change.
We have so many wonderful leaders at Cornell who have worked with tough organizations (i.e., unions) to advance organizational, cultural and systemic change over the years. The administration needs to recognize that it is the problem and that it should turn to Cornell’s own experts for the solutions, not dig in and push back against any suggestion that it could have done better. That is futile and will not lead to anything but more harm.
This is why I support this resolution. I want Cornell to be the best it can be. Right now, it is not and that saddens me.
Anne Marie Brady, Worker Institute, ILR School
As we read many of these anonymous comments in opposition, we should keep in mind that more than 130 faculty have publicly endorsed the resolution of no confidence.
As to the reasons for opposition, they are difficult to square with the fact that the central administration simply ignores resolutions that it does not like. We are hoping that this is a resolution that they cannot ignore and that it will, for that reason, finally open up a substantive dialogue of change between the central administration and the Cornell community. Signed: Richard Bensel, Faculty Senator and Gary S. Davis Professor, Department of Government.
We should also not forget that the resolution was negotiated behind closed doors, and that the sponsors presented themselves to the news media as speaking for the faculty long before speaking TO the faculty. Those opposed to the resolution did not have the luxury of dedicated time to present their case, nor even the privilege of knowing what the resolution said until it had already been in the news for a day.
The rapid show of opposition is clearly inconvenient to the sponsors, who refuse to wait until we learn if the administration actually violated any Cornell policies. But it does show that in this University of over 2,000 faculty members, many are not in favor of declaring ‘no confidence’ simply to force a conversation that could easily be had by simply asking for it. Indeed – the administrators of Cornell have gone out of their way to be as available as possible, meeting with people in groups or individually, to explain what has happened, why it has happened, and what they are hoping to change.
The reasons for support are rather difficult to square with the fact that the sponsors simply ignore facts they do not like, such as that utter willingness of the administration to engage in substantive dialogue which it has routinely demonstrated.
Surely it does not matter how many faculty have publicly endorsed the resolution?
What matters is the quality of the argument(s) in support of the resolution.
If the argument(s) in favor are persuasive it would not matter if the resolution had but a single endorsement. Counting the numbers is a political, not an intellectual game and its use as a rationale suggests perhaps less confidence in the resolution on its merits.
As we read many of these anonymous comments in opposition, we should keep in mind that more than 130 faculty have publicly endorsed the resolution of no confidence.
As to the reasons for opposition, they are difficult to square with the fact that the central administration simply ignores resolutions that it does not like. We are hoping that this is a resolution that they cannot ignore and that it will, for that reason, finally open up a substantive dialogue of change between the central administration and the Cornell community. Signed: Richard Bensel, Faculty Senator, Department of Government.
I cannot support this motion because, as stated by others, it lacks specifics about what was done or not done by “central administration”. Without more detailed information it is impossible to form an opinion and therefore seems completely premature to me.
I attended the recent Faculty Senate meeting and listened to the proposers regarding their rationale for this motion. In terms of specific action, it is unclear to me what this motion is meant to achieve, and no good answers were given when these questions were asked. I agree with President Kotlikoff that we are faced with a serious, complex problem that requires our community working together to confront and make better. This motion is not a step in that direction. In contrast, I have confidence that this administration can lead us effectively in addressing sexual misconduct on campus. For example, as then provost, President Kotlikoff led us through the COVID-19 pandemic, which we managed as an institution as well, if not better, than any university in the country. I was the chair of a large unit during that time, and in my experience, the challenges that the university met under Kotlikoff’s leadership were immense. Now, as director of a research institute, I saw firsthand how President Kotlikoff, newly appointed Provost Bala and OVPR Gary Koretzky contended with attacks on our federal funding and freedom of operation, which in my view they handled as well as could be hoped for, especially given the severe constraints that we were under. These situations were existential threats to the university, and we owe the administration much for getting us through them. I will also say that during yesterday’s meeting I was discouraged by the use of unreliable statistical data to fault the administration. The low response rates of the often-mentioned surveys create a high degree of uncertainty and as such, they are unfortunately, unreliable. I agree with the President that we need better data. It is of paramount importance to address sexual misconduct on campus, but if we want to be effective in doing so, we must examine the details of what can be a complex cultural issue. I believe that President Kotlikoff in his statements expressed the resolve to do just this. Things do need to change, we absolutely owe it to our students, but I heard nothing positive or constructive from those proposing this motion in that direction. In fact, up until now, the Faculty Senate has been silent on this important issue. I wonder where their outrage was two years ago when they had the same information that the President had. My takeaway from the meeting is that people are rightfully angry and want a scapegoat, but it would be a mistake to sacrifice excellent leadership for the sake of one. This motion is ill-conceived.
Brian Crane,
Chemistry and Chemical Biology
1. I’m familiar with general no-confidence resolutions, but this is the first resolution I’ve seen of the form, “No confidence in the administration’s ability to do Thing A.”
2. Based on the incomplete information available to us so far, it seems to me that some specific balls were dropped in the Jane Doe case. CUPD gave an excessively abridged account of their interview with Jane Doe to the DA — mistake. The DA decided not to prosecute anyone without interviewing any of the principals — mistake (and not a Cornell mistake). Etc.
3. The university followed procedure when addressing the incident. As a result, two students were expelled, two were suspended, one former student received a persona non grata, and two got slaps on the wrist. Contrary to the narrative “out there,” consequential stuff happened — the university didn’t “blow it off” or “sweep it under the rug.” It was big campus news in 2024, and confidentiality rules mandated the radio silence that followed.
4. While I strongly suspect that the university needs to overhaul its procedures — like, maybe don’t have minimally trained CUPD folks interview victims and abridge transcripts of their interviews, and maybe not be firing and hiring Title IX officers like there’s no tomorrow — I don’t see any big-time failure on the part of the “central administration” (whoever or whatever that is) to “effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault” at Cornell. That ongoing crisis exists and affects every college and university, and it predates by decades the tenures of any current “central administration” figures.
5. My personal inclination is to vote against the resolution. Nonetheless, I intend to poll my constituents before making a final decision.
I am uncomfortable with the resolution for two reasons.
Who/what is meant by “central administration”? According to https://leadership.cornell.edu/senior-leadership/, Cornell’s senior leadership comprises 17 senior administration officials. Are all of these individuals included in the term “central administration”? If not, which ones? What about the 16 individuals listed under academic leadership? Or the 13 individuals listed in the Provost’s Office (some of whom are also senior administration officials)? Does “central administration” include CUPD? If so, which parts? What about the Office of Civil Rights? Who/what else is included? Without a clear demarcation of what is meant by “central administration”, I fear that senators will draw different conclusions about what the term includes and then be voting on different things. That outcome strikes me as unfortunate, as we should all be voting on the same resolution; not our idiosyncratic interpretations of its target.
The rationale underlying the resolution is lacking specifics about any errors of omission or commission made by the central administration (however that term is defined). Absent such specifics, it is difficult to form an opinion. While today’s discussion in the faculty senate meeting was helpful in this regard, such discussion is not a substitute for documenting the specifics in the actual resolution. Moreover, it appears that people have very different views of the specifics discussed during today’s meeting. Meanwhile, there are two independent investigations underway to determine the validity of said specifics.
Given the lack of definition of “central administration”, the lack of specifics in the written resolution, and two ongoing investigations to provide details about any potential errors made by the central administration (however defined) on this topic, I am uncomfortable voting either way.
To me, postponing the vote and amending the resolution to both include a definition of “central administration” and incorporate any relevant findings made by the independent investigators is the best course of action at this time.
I think there are two separate questions here: 1) Who did what, what rules were violated, and where did specific failures occur?; and 2) Does faculty currently trust this administration’s judgment and capacity to address this crisis? The first requires investigation and careful factual findings. The latter is a governance judgment based on available evidence.
A no confidence vote is an assessment of leadership, not a verdict.
The strongest argument for waiting would be specific: “There is an unresolved fact that could materially change our judgment, and here is why.” Simply saying investigations are pending leaves unanswered what faculty are waiting to learn – and why uncertainty should favor continued confidence.
Opponents have requested the complete investigation as that will reveal if the President actually failed to follow any policy, or otherwise through action or inaction led to a needlessly bad result for Jane Doe.
Sponsors of the amendment failed to provide any reasons that we should not have faith in the current leadership of the university, save their constant complaints of speech infringements that consistently ignore the very real rights that were being violated by disciplined students. At best, they pointed to issues that are a systemic problem on every campus in the country and claimed that THIS administration cannot see us through them – with no evidence at all.
So to turn the question around – what would it take for sponsors and supporters to believe that the administration is telling the truth about pretty much any topic, and to stop claiming that the opposite was true in defiance of all actual evidence? What would it take to convince them that this administration was capable of leading Cornell through this crisis?
The robust discussion at today’s faculty senate meeting was very helpful. In particular, I urge the resolution sponsors to add some “whereas” clauses. As written the resolution just sounds to me like, “this is a horrible situation and we’re justifiably enraged about it, and therefore heads should roll.” But at the meeting several people articulated compelling justification for the resolution. If the text of the resolution included information about specific errors the “central administration” has committed to lead to this resolution, that would improve clarity. If the language of the whereas clauses can be kept as non-incendiary as possible, I also think it improves the chances of passing as well as the likely impact if it does pass.
What happened to Jane Doe is horrifying. Her courage, and the anger it has stirred across our campus, demand a serious response. Nothing in this comment is meant to diminish her experience or the fear many of our students now feel.
But a serious response is not the same as a hasty one. An independent review led by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has only just begun. It will examine how Cornell handled this case, how our police and disciplinary systems work, and how the Board itself exercised oversight. The Attorney General is conducting a separate criminal investigation. We do not yet know what those inquiries will find. A vote of no confidence now asks us to render a verdict before the evidence is in. As faculty, we would never accept that standard for our students or our colleagues, and we should not accept it here.
The public record is also more complicated than the current narrative suggests. Cornell issued a public update on this case in November 2024. In February 2025, more than a year and a half before the lawsuit, President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala created a Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault, formed in response to this very case. Its final recommendations were released in March 2026, and an implementation committee was already working to put them into practice when the lawsuit was filed. That is not the record of an administration that ignored the problem or waited for headlines. It deserves at least as much attention as the criticism now being leveled.
Could more have been done in 2024 and 2025? Almost certainly, and President Kotlikoff has said so himself. In his October 13 letter, he wrote plainly that Cornell must acknowledge where it has fallen short. But judging past decisions with today’s information is hindsight, and hindsight is not the same as failure of leadership. The right question is whether this administration can lead us forward, and his actions since the lawsuit suggest it can. He has not hidden behind the review. He has communicated with our community repeatedly since the lawsuit became public, in writing, on video, and in person. He has said Cornell cannot wait for the review’s findings to act, and he hasn’t. Independent State Police investigators will now handle sexual assault allegations, a dedicated case manager will support those who report, victim advocates are being added beyond the task force’s own recommendations, and fraternity social events are suspended for the year. Action on safety should not wait for the review. A judgment on leadership should.
Many of us are frustrated by how little the university has said. But we should remember that federal privacy law, the confidentiality of Title IX proceedings, and active litigation sharply limit what any university leader can disclose. We do not yet know what constraints President Kotlikoff has been operating under, and silence imposed by law should not be mistaken for concealment.
We should also remember the context. He took on the presidency in the midst of this case. In the months after Cornell’s Title IX proceedings concluded, he was steering the university through more than $250 million in federal funding interruptions that threatened research and jobs across every campus. That does not excuse what may have been missed, and I do not offer it as an excuse. But it is part of an honest picture. He deserves the same due process we would insist on for anyone else.
I ask you to let the independent review do its work, to withhold judgment until it does, and to vote against this resolution.
Gretchen Schoeffler, DVM, DACVECC, Clinical Sciences (CVM).
This vague resolution if approved will be publicly available for everyone outside of Cornell to judge. The ‘central administrators’ of greatest focus (to me) are tenured faculty, and as such are peers of this body even as they seek to guide the university. Should we not rather be introspective of our own culpability in the campus climate? This resolution is also silent what it would put confidence in. Though I am appalled at the tragic events that have occurred on our campus, such an open-ended declaration will do nothing to ease tensions or bring justice, as people can read into it anything they want. This is not how we have wanted our political representatives to operate, and I don’t think we will provide a good example for our peers. We would do better to be as specific as possible in the complaint and the proposed remedy and not vote until such a resolution is so composed.
As an Institution we failed to protect Jane Doe before her horrific assault, and we then failed to provide her the support or the means to deal with the personal consequences of that assault. I really cannot see how a blanket vote of no confidence in our central administration does anything towards addressing the failures for which we as a community need to take ownership and act, not pontificate.
I believe the resolution is premature, as we do not yet have a sufficiently clear picture of the facts. With two independent investigations currently underway, the prudent course is to wait for their findings before taking a position.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that the Senate has increasingly been willing to act prematurely and base resolutions on media reports rather than a fuller understanding of the facts. I believe this risks undermining the credibility of the Senate and its role in thoughtful, informed deliberation.
As educators and researcher we are trained to reserve judgement on our topics of specialty until we have done the research, collected as much detail as possible, and assessed the validity of the sources. This issue should be treated with the same diligence. We don’t have all the facts and details and should not act until we have them.
It seems like we have information from the suit which may use facts or hyperbolize them to justify or sensationalize the case. We have information from the media: random interview-based, from different parties’ lawyers, and some from the Cornell Administration. And we have heard some from the Cornell Administrators themselves. There is still much that we don’t know that may be limited by HIPPA, FERPA, and what is required in a criminal investigation.
We should wait until we hear the findings from Letitia James’ and Sally Yates’ investigations before taking this step. Perhaps the administration did all that it could at the time based on the law and Cornell’s policies. We don’t know that yet. And if they didn’t… well then we need to act.
The events as reported in the media and documented in the civil suit of 2024 represent a disturbing and unacceptable culture of sexual abuse here on the Cornell campus. The actions or inactions of the Cornell administration need to be thoroughly and independently investigated to show the truth. I am not prepared to say I know the truth as most information presented in the media is spun to the perspective of the source. Following an independent review of the administration, a vote of no confidence may be appropriate. However, in the absence of an investigation, this step comes across as reactive and consistent with the social media frenzy mob mentality we should seek to avoid. The issue is real. Cornell needs to do better. Freedom and safety from sexual assault in any form is paramount. Please revisit this resolution once the full investigation has been performed.
This resolution was written before the administration had a chance to address the faculty. The sponsors presented it to the press as being from the faculty, before most faculty had even heard about it. And no evidence, at all, has been presented by the sponsors to justify a lack of confidence in our administration.
I stand against this absurd attack on our administrators.
Hello,
It would be helpful if the actual consequences of this vote could be elaborated on. Is this just about making a statement, or are there tangible outcomes that would take place (or that the university faculty committee hopes to achieve) with a postive/negative vote?
This resolution is not sponsored by the University Faculty Committee, but rather by the Faculty Senators listed on the resolution.
There is no binding consequence that would result from passage of a no confidence resolution.
Chris B. Schaffer
Dean of Faculty
I would hesitate to guess at any motivation from the University Faculty Committee. The current senate rules are that any four senators can sponsor a motion and basically force it to the floor – the UFC has some input, but is generally expected to schedule it for consideration following such sponsorship numbers. So it’s probably better to ask what the sponsors hope to achieve, rather than what the UFC’s goals are.
Dean Schaffer has suggested a system in which sponsored motions would be more robustly considered, and possible opposition motions given equal footing, but this has not been implemented.