63 thoughts on "Proposed resolution: Cornell Faculty Senators Vote of No Confidence"

1. The public release of the letter to the faculty senate from Jane Doe’s lawyer compromises the faculty senate resolution, the resolution should be withdrawn. With this development it would be irresponsible to allow the resolution to proceed.

   It is in the singular interest of Jane Doe’s lawyer to obtain the largest possible financial settlement for his client.

   It is the broad responsibility of the Cornell faculty to improve the Cornell community.

   There are currently two investigations underway, a criminal one into the events of October 19th 2024 under the auspices of the NYS Governor and Attorney General, and an outside independent evaluation with resources and a broad mandate to examine the university’s handling of sexual assault on campus. These investigations and the civil lawsuit are the avenues for Jane Doe to achieve accountability and justice.

   For Cornell faculty, the external investigations are the appropriate mechanism to receive an accurate accounting of events and to draw appropriate lessons for leadership and the institution in general. The supporters of this resolution have mentioned conversations with students as a motivation; they must encourage students to share information with the independent investigation. Faculty can take an active role to support students and positively improve the campus climate. We should be looking inwards and challenge ourselves to promote the intellectual and social environment on campus; faculty can model how to channel pain and outrage into constructive engagement. As the recent report from the Provost’s committee on the future of the American university, made clear, we have much work to do.

   https://provost.cornell.edu/_files/initiatives/future-of-the-american-university-full-report.pdf

   Log in to Reply

2. I strongly support a YES vote on the NO CONFIDENCE resolution regarding the central administration, whose most prominent representative is the President and then the Provost and includes the large bureaucracy that surrounds them.

   The Confidence that now collapses owing to the grossly delayed, lackluster, reactive response to the crisis around the lawsuit launched in September regarding the Chi Phi rape case of 2024 has been eroding for several years. It has been clear for some time that this administration prioritizes the “brand” or corporate public image of Cornell over commitment to and cultivation of the university’s educational mission. Various branches of the central administration have been quick to criminalize student dissent and stifle academic freedom and freedom of speech, presumably to appease power brokers and big donors. That same central administration from the president on down has been exceedingly, absurdly slow and inadequate in responding to the effects of the current crisis on the wellbeing of students, faculty and staff and on the learning environment of the university in general.

   By way of evidence, here is the timeline.
   The Cornell Daily Sun first reported on Jane Doe’s lawsuit on September 18 and published the names of the accused on September 21. By Thursday September 25 the story is all over social media and students begin to raise concerns in classes. I am grateful to colleagues at AAUP who circulated useful approaches to discussing sensitive issues in class and who aggregated information about the unfolding media accounts. The intensive reporting by the New York Times began on October 1, and, significantly, it wasn’t until two days later, on October 3rd , that the university president made his first comment on the crisis, with a lackluster video released simultaneously to the national press and the Cornell community.

   It took *two weeks* for the Cornell president to respond to what he himself finally called a “historic” crisis for Cornell. Why? It felt as though the entire upper administration was simply, historically AWOL

   It took an addition 3 days, on October 6, so *17 days* into the crisis, before the deputy provost sent out a message with various urls linking to various resources to support us instructors in this difficult time. By then, the media had been camped out all over campus for about ten days and for those of us actually in the classroom, the need for such resources had long passed.

   This is not leadership; it’s not even management, and it is more than sufficient grounds for a robust lack of confidence in the central administration. We don’t need more evidence or more elaborate reports from trustee-appointed reviews (which will take months to complete) to grasp that this administration has become gravely disconnected from the educational mission of the university it is tasked with leading and protecting.

   Log in to Reply

3. To postpone this vote on procedural grounds would avoid confronting one of the most devastating crises to face this university in recent decades. It would reflect terribly on the Senate and would signal our unwillingness to face this crisis head on. Students are in an uproar, national and international media have put a spotlight on our community, and we all have access to a tremendous amount of information about the sexual violence Jane Doe endured and the university’s response to the misconduct of the men involved. Faculty governance means that we have a responsibility to weigh in on issues of importance to this campus. We cannot shirk that responsibility now.

   Respectfully,
   Sandra Babcock
   Senator-at-Large, RTE Faculty

   Log in to Reply

   • Let us remember that this administration has already given us a multitude of pertinent information: From the statistic that 1 in 3 undergraduate women on campus and 1 in 2 undergraduate women in Greek life report sexual misconduct to helping to quiet the sexual abuses happening at our medical school to waiting two years – and only after an international spotlight was put on our campus – to apologize, and just last week withholding a letter from Jane Doe herself – the person for whom we gather on this platform – addressing the Faculty Senate regarding her own experiences.

     This crisis is now, and the time to act is now.

     Log in to Reply

4. There is a very much active, on-going investigation into the nature and circumstances of what the Administration had or had not done in the matter pertaining to the pending lawsuit. To judge its previous actions or inactions, as well its ability to maintain a safe environment at Cornell for all students, without having ALL the pertinent facts in hand is a perversion of the deliberative process that the Academic Senate is charged to engage in. It would be an outrage to allow such a resolution to pass.

   Log in to Reply

5. Waiting for the Yates report in order to vote on the “no confidence” resolution is simply a way. not to deal with the evidence that is before us of the administration’s failure to act effectively on the ongoing problem of sexual assault at Cornell. This evidence of tha failure has been reported in the media, including The Cornell Daily Sun, and in the numerous articles and op-eds on the subject. The evidence is also manifest in Jane Doe’s legal Complaint against Cornell and the other defendants, which elaborates an institutional failure to protect female students that is applicable beyond the Jane Doe case. It is also important to note thaat the Yates report was commissioned by the Board of Trustees not by the faculty, students, and staff of Cornell, so whatever “autonomy” is promised, and we have no reason to dounbt Yates’s integrity, the report is not independent. The Dean of the Faculty has now presented a resolution that proposes among other stipulations a faculty panel to investigate the situation of sexual assault at Cornell. But such a resolution, should it pass, is at best an afterthought (a reaction to the “no confidence” resolution) and will not carry the weight of the Yates report because of the top-down governance that is the case at Cornell. If faculty governance were operative at Cornell, a panel of faculty, students, and staff should have been empowered in the first place to investigate the situation of sexual assault. The fact is ,because of the marginalization of faculty governance, the “no confidence” vote is the only mechanism the faculty has in the immediate situation to voice its sense of administrative responsibility for the social environment at Cornell that led to the Jane Doe case. It is important for everyone involved to hear that voice and for everyone in the faculty senate to vote on the ample evidence that is before them.

   Log in to Reply

6. Unless additional information comes to light between now and October 28th that causes me to reconsider, I will support *postponing* the “no confidence” vote; if the “no confidence” vote occurs on October 28th anyway, I will vote against it.

   My rationale for voting to postpone (or against) the “no confidence” vote includes the following:
   • The current “no confidence” 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 I am 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. One is a criminal investigation into the “Jane Doe” case, called for by Governor Hochul and led by State Attorney General of New York Letitia James. The other is an investigation called for by Cornell’s Board of Trustees and led by Former US Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, the goals of which include an “independent review of how the University prevents and responds to sexual harassment, sexual assault and related misconduct on campus” as well as “a detailed review of the University’s response to the allegations involving Jane Doe and members of the Chi Phi fraternity in October 2024, including whether Cornell followed its policies and procedures in responding to the matter.” I think that a “no confidence” vote is premature and should take place contingent on the findings of both independent investigations. Simply put, in my opinion, voting now would be a rush to judgment.
   • I think that President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala (a very narrow definition of the term “central administration”) have done a solid job navigating Cornell through the myriad crises we have faced during the last several years. While I may not agree with all their decisions, as of right now they have earned my trust and confidence in their ability to effectively deal with the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell. My confidence may change after the independent investigations are complete, which only serves to underscore the importance of my second point…it is too soon for this vote.

   Log in to Reply

   • While the resolution might have been more detailed, a few replies to you and others who have raised these points:

     –The phrase “Central Administration” is used in a motion that is being considered by the senate tomorrow as well–one that is full of “Whereas” clauses. I have seen no similar objection being made to that resolution. The point, I think, is that this is not a move to demand that any individual resign. Indeed, while people might find fault with individuals, the problem being identified, as I understand the resolution (I am not the author) is a systemic one.

     –A vote of confidence is not a verdict but exactly what it says it is: a statement about confidence. It seems to me that the job of the administration is to demonstrate that it deserves our confidence. I point to Trustee Emeritus John Dyson’s statement on October 15, when he said to the NY Times, “the trustees run the university legally and in fact. The faculty think they do, but they don’t.” No one from the President, Provost, to the Dean of Faculty, has yet condemned that deeply insulting statement, which to my mind stands in for the current administrative disposition to the faculty: that faculty opinion on the direction of this university does not matter. It essentially renders any gestures we might make to shared governance null and void, which is why both resolutions before the Senate on 10/28 are important to strongly consider. Dyson’s words, to me, are a vote of no confidence from a powerful trustee and confidante of the current university president. Confidence is a two-way street.

     –I am glad you have confidence in the President and Provost, but you have left out one crisis from your list: the ridiculous incident of Pres. Kotlikoff hitting students with his car. He both lied about the details of that incident, using the university’s communicative channels, and then blamed the students for being hit, with the backing of the Trustees. That was a “crisis” entirely of his own making. Students in any campus will protest, and, yes, they can be obnoxious about it. The job of a leader is to lower the temperature and de-escalate, perhaps even to listen rather than to profile the students as criminals and troublemakers. He failed, but the real failure was that the Trustees, who I would include in the central administration, did not hold him to account. In fact, they congratulated him for lying and for drawing weeks of embarrassing media attention to Cornell. That was scarcely six months ago.

     Alex Nading
     Anthropology

     Log in to Reply

   • To postpone this vote on procedural grounds would avoid confronting one of the most devastating crises to face this university in recent decades. It would reflect terribly on the Senate and would signal our unwillingness to face this crisis head on. Students are in an uproar, national and international media have put a spotlight on our community, and we all have access to a tremendous amount of information about the sexual violence Jane Doe endured and the university’s response to the misconduct of the men involved. Faculty governance means that we have a responsibility to weigh in on issues of importance to this campus. We cannot shirk that responsibility now.

     Respectfully,
     Sandra Babcock
     Senator-at-Large, RTE Faculty

     Log in to Reply

7. A lot of important points have already been formulated here, which I don’t want to repeat. I, too, support this resolution: I have no confidence in the administration in principle, and certainly not in their ability to make the urgently necessary changes in the culture of sexual assault and systemic patriarchal violence and oppression.

   I have had no confidence or trust in the institutional structures or in good faith, honest conversation and argument with administrators for a while; and in various roles I have been trying to address the erosion of trust due to top-down administrative communication for a while.

   For years, shared governance has been hollowed out and the administration has refused to listen with attention and respect or to engage in good faith-conversations with students, staff, and faculty over all kinds of matters vital to our community; instead, those in positions of leadership consistently have chosen not to listen but to brief us, in a managerial style trained by consulting firms which shows little respect for the deep and rich grown archives of knowledge and experience by staff, faculty, and students on campus.
   It is yet another proof of the administration’s refusal to really engage in meaningful communication to keep stating that they need more time or more studies or more proof or more task forces. There are experts currently employed and retired but still living in Ithaca who have worked extensively and diligently on sexual assault, sexual harassment and gender-based violence on campus for decades – they have done studies, they have addressed individual events and structures. And they have not been listened to.
   For those asking for “evidence based”-studies: A) since 2015, every 2 years the SHARE-office has put out studies that have consistently pointed to the pervasiveness of sexual violence on campus and each time findings have been accompanied by hollow statements coming from the office of Student&Campus Life (VP R. LOMBARDI). Even after President Pollack’s 2019 statement that had to acknowledge a crisis of sexual assault and the role of Greek life in this crisis, as we now see, there was no principal willingness to center the safety of students regarding sexual violence. Hence, I see no reason to trust the leadership we must lead in the necessary steps for change that would include a real, hard, honest and yes, critical, look at patriarchal structures of inequality and oppression at Cornell as in the society we live in.

   As far as I understand, for now, evidence shows that the EAAA-program (sometimes called “Flip the Script”) has up to now in studies been the only initiative that has helped make a dent in the numbers of sexual assaults on campuses (see this recent article https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2026/10/guest-room-why-we-spent-over-100-hours-learning-to-talk-about-sexual-violence). This is not a new program and from what I understand it has been around for a while – while this cannot be the only approach, it certainly is a program that has been around for a while as has the evidence of its positive results. From a responsible administration, I would have expected that there would have been a sustained engagement with this program, a larger discussion on campus about sex, gender, and power, and resources and money committed to evidence based programs.

   This is, as I said, just one example for my support for putting this administration on notice to do better, much better, and to train their ears to really listen, stop the top-down communication and humbly ask for the knowledge and experience of those who have dedicated their lives to care and do research on sexual assault and to survivors.

   Thank you to everyone who is doing the hard work of holding us all responsible and holding us to the standards of education that truly centers “the whole human.” Thank you to everyone caring for survivors of sexual assault and survivors of intimate partner violence. Deep respect to Jane Doe and all survivors for surviving and raising their voices in so many ways, big and small.

   Log in to Reply

8. Sexual assault is abhorrent but this resolution does not help for the reasons those more articulate than I have stated. I await the independent report to enable informed and constructive next steps.

   Log in to Reply

9. Dear Cornell colleagues.

   First, I want to acknowledge the incredible pain to our Cornell community over the Jane Doe rape, and the subsequent soul searching.

   Second, I ask that we all be very thoughtful in moving forward, and not be overly quick to decision or judgement. For a little context, I was one of the Senator reps from my department (E&EB) for a decade or so, and from that, I was also one of the individuals who represented the Faculty Senate on the University Assembly (UA). For those of you not close to campus governance, the UA represents the Faculty, the undergrads, the grad & professional students, and the non-faculty employees in a 20-member body with equal representation from each of these groups. I was the rep from the faculty to the exec committee of the UA for several years, and then was vice chair and then chair of the UA for a few years, including through the covid time.

   As chair of the UA in 2019 and 2020, I interacted very regularly with then President Marth Pollock and then Provost Mike Kotlikoff. One of the things regularly in the discussion mix was the rewriting of the Campus Code of Conduct and how to handle Title IX issues. I did not always agree with either Pollock or Kotlikoff on these or other issues, but I came away with an extreme appreciation of them as individuals, and for the difficulty of performing well in the jobs they held.

   Clearly there are ways the University failed Jane Doe. We must find ways to improve moving forward. But Mike Kotlikoff has acknowledged this, and I believe he is sincere. At this point, I believe it would be a terrible decision for him to step down, and I feel it would be unwise for the Faculty Senate to urge that course. Let’s see how things play out through further outside investigation. And let’s continue the discussion to do more in the meanwhile, as Mike Kotlikoff has urged. Personally, I am inclined to favor banning frats, and exploring other ways to help our students find more appropriate ways to party and enjoy their downtime.

   I found this recent opinion in the NY Times to be helpful:
   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/17/opinion/cornell-jane-doe-title-ix.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20261024&instance_id=184054&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=54443955&segment_id=228617&user_id=839d9390546d8d01876f85d654b15358

   Your colleague,

   Bob Howarth

   Log in to Reply

10. For those concerned about performativity–what’s been truly performative are the actions of the administration, only taking superficial steps to address systemic issues, and then only when faced with a lawsuit, negative press, and a pending vote of no confidence.

    This resolution is not an attack, and does not call for anyone’s resignation. Rather, it sends a signal, most importantly to Cornell students, that faculty see how the institution is failing them. It is a signal of our attention and our intention.

    A vote of no confidence is an opening step toward discussing true, systemic changes. Those discussions will require time and more information. But the idea that we need more information to know that what has been done is not enough is preposterous.

    I am not a faculty senator, but I am proud that my senator is a sponsor of and will be voting in favor of this resolution. It is the least we can do at this critical time.

    Log in to Reply

    • The administration actually began taking steps long before the lawsuit and press. The Taskforce was convened years ago. It planned to show concrete steps the faculty could take to address sexual violence on campus during the faculty senate meeting. Similarly, students were expelled or given very long suspensions, long before the lawsuit or press. These are simply facts.

      The group that did exactly nothing until public pressure mounted are the sponsors (and the rest of the faculty senators), who have said not one word about sexual violence on the floor of the faculty senate until the lawsuit came out. Don’t believe that? The minutes are publicly avaiable, and are a full transcript of each meeting. Read them yourself.

      Log in to Reply

11. There have been remarks to the effect that we lack good data about the prevalence and seriousness of SA/SH on campus and that we cannot act until such data is obtained. Specifically, doubt has been cast on the biennial Cornell Survey of Sexual Assault and Related Misconduct (SARM).

    Proponents of “no confidence” cite SARM findings as evidence that SA/SH is and long has been impermissibly widespread and that Cornell leadership has done too little to remediate the problem.

    By contrast, critics claim we should not trust the Survey and should wait to gather more data before drawing any conclusions.

    In fact, the SARM results are robust and statistically reliable. Detailed analysis follows.

    The 2025 SARM findings have been repeatedly characterized as unreliable because the response rate was lower than in prior years. However, the sample size is still large: 3.5% of Cornell women (students only) completed the survey. (For reference, that’s a higher proportion of the population under study than sampled annually by the US Census Bureau.). At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error for the 2025 SARM is ±4.29%.

    Prior years of SARMS had a higher response rate and higher reliability. For instance, in 2023, 1,062 women responded to the survey out of 13,679 female students on campus. At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error drops to ±2.89%.

    But regardless, in both recent surveys, the SARM data are highly reliable and actionable. Both 2025 and 2023 SARM data easily clear the benchmark of a 95% confidence level with a margin of error under 5%. There is no reason to doubt the robustness of these findings. So let’s dig into what SARM shows.

    In 2025, over 30% of undergrad women [151 actual women] reported experiencing stalking that made them “fear for [their] personal safety.” 93% of the stalkers were men. 90% of the stalkers were fellow Cornell students.

    If we extrapolate from this data across the student population, the true number of undergraduate women experiencing sits between 2,100 and 3,100 students, with a midpoint count projection of 2,609 female undergraduates living in fear. The number will rise if we include graduate and professional female students. This is a serious, pervasive, and as prior surveys indicate, sustained problem. We can state that at least a quarter and up to a third of female students are forced by stalking at Cornell to endure a hostile learning environment.

    In the same SARM survey, 35% of undergraduate women [176 actual women] report, since entering Cornell, experiencing “nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation.” 19% [96 actual women] report nonconsensual “penetration” while another 31% [156 actual women] report nonconsensual “sexual touching (includes choking).”

    27% of these victims report that “perpetrator used physical force or threats of physical force.” 39% report that “I was unable to consent due to incapacitation.” 100% report that their assailant was a man. 86% report that he was a fellow Cornell student.

    These data are robust enough to make inferences about the larger student population at Cornell. Namely, we estimate with a high degree of confidence that as of 2025, between 2,500 and 3,600 undergraduate women on campus experienced nonconsensual sexual contact ranging from choking to penetration. The midpoint count projection is 3,044 undergraduate women.

    According to SARM, what were the mid- to long-term results of the attacks undergraduate women endured?

    43% experience ongoing fear
    37% experience “helplessness and hopelessness”
    26% experience nightmares, insomnia, and sleep disruptions
    55% feel “numb or detached”
    14% increase use of drugs and alcohol
    1/3 withdraw from friends and social activities
    51% have trouble concentrating on school work
    31% decrease class attendance
    10% drop or change a class
    14% consider leaving their program or leaving Cornell

    Despite all of these grievous, ongoing harms of experiencing sexual assault, only 24% of victims seek support from “a program or resource” at Cornell. Why?

    They report a variety of fears, including 11% who fear retaliation. Importantly, despite all the suffering attested and documented in SARM, 38% of victims did not think their experience “serious enough” to seek help and 41% “did not think anything would be done.”

    These statistics highlight how high the bar is for a woman at Cornell to feel she has the right to safety. Sexual violence against women is pervasive and normalized.

    Students at Cornell have no expectation that the institution or its agents will protect them. This data has been clear and publicly available for years. Yet the institution has done little to correct the problem. If anything, in the wake of revelations about the (mis)handling of the Jane Doe case and hundreds of cases, leading to a billion dollar settlement, at Weill Cornell, there is every reason to believe that trust in the institution’s will and capacity to protect students from stalking and sexual assault is lower than ever.

    To be clear, data from prior years, e.g. SARM 2023, do not paint a rosier picture. Rather, they substantiate the broad trends identified in the 2025 SARM survey as well as prior years.

    Here are a few highlights from the 2023 report.

    23% of undergraduate women [244 actual women] reported, since entering Cornell, experiencing “nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation. Over 15% of assaults involved two, three, or more assailants. 97% of victims reported that their assailant(s) were man. 92% reported that he was a fellow Cornell student. 25% of these assaults took place in a fraternity house.

    Female victims in 2023 reported similar long-term sequelae as in 2025, from physical injury to fear, numbness, social withdrawal, difficulty sleeping, withdrawal from social life, withdrawal from classes, difficulty concentrating on school work, and considering leaving their program or Cornell.

    Of note: Cornell men also report nonconsensual sexual contact, albeit in much lower numbers. Those men are far more likely to report no sequelae — no bodily injuries, pregnancy, or damage to their physical or mental health, social life, academic performance, or professional prospects. In other words, women not only suffer a higher proportion of sexual assaults; the assaults they endure are more severe and life-altering.

    Overall, the projected prevalence range for nonconsensual sexual contact among undergraduate women at Cornell is 19-26% based on 2023 data and 30-40% based on 2025 data. Neither set of numbers is exculpatory. Neither is data from prior years.

    The midpoint count projection for students suffering stalking and sexual assault will vary depending on which year’s SARM data one consults. However, in all cases the number will be in the thousands — not the dozens or hundreds. This is an epidemic. The epidemic is well documented and longstanding. The SARM surveys are a snapshot of pain in the student body that continues to accumulate year after year. Thousands of casualties continue to pile up and we continue to look away.

    We do not need more data before we act to protect current and future students from an institutional culture that neglects and silences victims while tolerating the perpetrators.

    Title IX investigations at Cornell rarely find anyone accountable. When perpetrators are found accountable, they are rarely given punishments stiffer than the requirement to write a reflection paper. Meanwhile, administrators at Weill Cornell covered up, denied, and abetted sexual abuse for ten years before finally settling for over $1 billion dollars.

    The data on Weill Cornell case, the Title IX cases, and the SARM reports are public. Dig deeper if you have time.

    Log in to Reply

12. The resolution does not target individuals; it targets a pattern of governance that has been insufficient in its responsiveness to a known campus problem, even in the face of new crises. I refer to the sexual assaults on both the Weill Medical and the Ithaca campuses, the details of which were initially known only to administrators and some trustees. Please consider:
    • The Cornell President’s letter to the community in November of 2024 did not indicate that the initial report alleged a sexual assault by multiple assailants; it thereby minimized the scope of the assault and the community standards violations.
    • The University conducts regular surveys about sexual assault on the Ithaca campus and administrators have long known about the prevalence of sexual assault. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable for the community to expect that administrators would follow up on a charge of sexual assault involving multiple assailants and review the proceedings when it was legal and appropriate for them to do so, which is to say after the disciplinary and title IX processes were concluded in the summer of 2025.
    • The report of the Presidential Task Force on Sexual Assault has been available since March of this year, but the details and timeline of its implementation were delegated to a committee and not clearly communicated to the campus community until recently. The spirit of the task force report, namely the framework it adopts from Sexual Citizenship by Hirsch and Khan that sexual assault is a systemic issue, was observably absent from the early University communications in the wake of Jane Doe’s filing.
    • Many community members (Weill and Ithaca) have expressed their concern that the administration and trustees have prioritized controlling the message over listening to constituents. In Ithaca, for instance: 1) Members of the administration have been consistent in pairing concerns about misconduct with advocacy for the fraternity system. 2) Initial administrative responses to the filing of Jane Doe’s lawsuit included a statement to faculty and staff not to discuss the case publicly and 3) Administrators held a town hall on zoom with scripted presentations from administrators; another administrator aggregated questions from the chat without any opportunity for direct questions or comments.

    If introducing the resolution contributed, even in small part, to shifting the administrative response from defensive damage control to a more active posture, then it has not been only a symbolic gesture. In any case, I do not think symbolic gestures are meaningless when we are talking about, among other things, the need to shift campus culture.

    Sexual violence scales imbalances in social power down to the individual and enforces them at the most intimate level. The outcry we have witnessed at Cornell this fall is a collective attempt to hold a mirror up to those mechanisms of scale and reflect them in reverse. I don’t think anyone expects the University administration to solve a problem that extends to the wider culture. But we do ask the administration and trustees to acknowledge the whole picture reflected there and do their part to model the community standards of care that we want our students to show each other. I care about the University, which is why it feels important to me to speak up and say that the current patterns of governance are not working with respect to sexual assault and with respect to mitigating imbalances of social power within the institution. I continue to support the resolution because signaling allegiance to those who currently hold the power to run the University feels less important to me than signaling to those who feel the least institutional power that I too see that the way we govern matters.

    I also strongly support the new resolution proposed by the UFC. I will vote yes on both resolutions.

    Log in to Reply

    • What new resolution proposed by the UFC?

      Log in to Reply

      • Please see the Pending Matters webpage https://deanoffaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-governance/faculty-senate/pending-matters/: Proposed resolution – A Sustained Faculty Commitment to Preventing Sexual Violence (https://deanoffaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-governance/faculty-senate/pending-matters/proposed-resolution-a-sustained-faculty-commitment-to-preventing-sexual-violence/)

        Log in to Reply

13. Kotlikoff’s repeated attempts to deflect attention and criticism from his failures by offering multiple variations on the theme of “We are all responsible / We must work together” underscore the need to hold the university “leadership” responsible for its actions and inaction. I have placed “leadership” in scare quotes because, of course, our true bosses are the members of the moneyed elite who serve on the board of trustees; the board protects its puppets, allowing them to rule by diktat (so much for “shared governance”) and shielding them from responsibility. I fail to see how faculty, or students, or staff, can have confidence in this system. The SA affair that has justly shaken the Cornell community is just one of the many reasons to vote in favor of the no-confidence resolution.

    —Shimon Edelman, Psychology

    Log in to Reply

14. I am impressed by Jane Doe’s exceptional courage.

    I applaud our current students for the courage they have shown in their responses to this incident.

    I believe in Cornell’s founding institutional values and in the human-centered ethos that defines many parts of our community.

    Based on information about this incident and other events over the past several years, I have weakening confidence that the leadership has the courage to defend these values robustly.

    I support this resolution of the Faculty Senate to send a strong message to our leaders that they must find this courage.

    Cornell must take bold action to reform and replace institutional structures that permit and even promote experiences such as Jane Doe’s.

    More generally, Cornell’s administration should show bolder leadership in defining institutional excellence in a manner that prioritizes human well-being and upholds our commitment to “any person, any study”.

    Abe Stroock – Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

    Log in to Reply

15. As a rule, I too am opposed to merely “performative” action or virtue signaling. So I can understand, to a degree, some of the doubts expressed about the “performativity” of the no-confidence resolution.

    Except that professions of faith, confidence, and loyalty in the administration are also performative.

    Except that attacks on sponsors of the resolution as “garbage” are also performative.

    Except that opponents of the resolution (almost exclusively men) lining up to insist that they have polled their departments, and in every (male-dominated) department, “70-80%” of faculty oppose the resolution — that’s performative. You polled your departments two weeks before voting, before any debate and deliberation had taken place? Why? For the performance value on the senate floor.

    Don’t pretend the other side is the only side performing. The question is who’s your audience, and what do you want them to hear?

    Interestingly, I know some women from those departments who were never polled.

    Suppressing women’s voices and talking down to those women who show up and speak up? That’s also performative.

    This performance is getting old.

    Demanding further data before we act? As if years, decades, nay centuries, of data isn’t enough? WE KNOW THERE’S A CRISIS and it isn’t being treated as one. Because the crisis benefits some people and hurts others. If you’re not getting hurt, it’s pretty easy to overlook! It can even be fun.

    Looking away, Sir, is part of your performance. Scolding us for asking for your attention to this matter? Also part of your performance.

    Sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination are a crisis we’ve been living with for a long time. But you want us to shut up, have faith, keep waiting?

    As if the men in the senate who berate women in the senate for expressing their mere “passion” about this issue are the real experts on sexual assault, violence, harassment, and discrimination? As if we need to be quiet and get educated by them? Because, to quote from the post by Anonymous on Oct. 22, “The sensible thing to do would be to model calm and patience.”

    We have modeled utmost calm and patience through decades of enduring the assaults and the denial and the sweeping under the rug and the mansplaining and the attacks on our credibility if we dare speak up. We have performed calm and patience and reconciliation so many times. That docile performance, the one you’re asking us to put on again? Performing docility has not solved our problems.

    We’ve waited. We’re done waiting.

    We trusted. We’re done trusting.

    Your attempts to denigrate as irrational and uninformed and misguided and even duplicitous any expression of a loss of confidence in the status quo is performative.

    We find the performance insulting. We know it is intended to be.

    A lot of what Kotlikoff and his administration have done in reacting to this crisis is performative.

    It’s performance all the way down. We’re asking you to perform, just this once, on the side of justice rather than power. We’re asking for an act of solidarity — anything but a sneer, a pat on the head, a patronizing “be calm, wait a while, we’ll take care of it.”

    We who find the status quo belittling, oppressive, and dangerous could use a hand, a word, and your vote.

    Log in to Reply

16. Comment by Risa Lieberwitz, Faculty Senator, ILR School

    I am a co-sponsor of the “Resolution of No Confidence in the Cornell Central Administration.” Here are key points about why I support the Resolution:

    ● There is an ongoing crisis and an upward trend of sexual assault at Cornell. This includes the 2025 statistics of 35% of undergraduate women reporting being sexually assaulted at Cornell. It also includes 10 years of sexual assaults by a Weill Cornell Medical School physician and Cornell’s negligence in handling complaints it received, resulting in over $1 billion of damages paid by Cornell to settle the claims.
    ● 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.
    ● The reactive and piecemeal approach of the central administration has eroded the trust of students, faculty, and staff that the central administration has the ability to lead systemic change at Cornell.
    ● Appointing a Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault in February 2025 was not an adequate or effective response to the report of the sexual assault by multiple perpetrators in the Jane Doe case. The length of time taken by the Task Force to issue its report and the slow rate of implementation of the recommendations shows that Cornell has not adequately prioritized addressing the severity of the problem.
    ● The Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault was made up largely of Cornell administrators and did not draw on the range of Cornell faculty expertise, including faculty who have worked on the ground in making organizational change on these systemic issues. Lacking adequate faculty expertise on the Task Force, the recommendations did not reflect the scope of systemic changes needed to address and prevent sexual assault, other sexual misconduct, or the culture of misogyny at Cornell.
    ● Cornell has avoided strong responses to the long-term problem of the culture and conduct of Cornell Greek-affiliated fraternities. The evidence shows that there are serious problems with sexual assaults in the Greek-affiliated fraternities, and that there is a disproportionately high rate of sexual assaults reported by undergraduate women who are members of Cornell Greek-affiliated sororities — 52% of Cornell undergraduate women who are Greek-affiliated reported experiencing a sexual assault, compared to 29% of those who are not Greek-affiliated. Yet the Cornell Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault did not recommend systemic changes in the Greek fraternity system, including consideration of eliminating them.
    ● Faculty, student, and employee governance bodies have been excluded from plans for addressing problems of sexual assault and student conduct. Of the 19 members appointed to the Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault, only 3 faculty members were appointed (1 tenured; 3 RTE) and 3 students. None of the faculty were identified as members of the Faculty Senate and none of the students were identified as members of the Student Assembly. Further, the (newly named) Cornell Office of Civil Rights does not consult with the Cornell faculty, student and employee governance bodies when making changes in Title IX-related policies. Additionally, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution regarding changes to the Student Code of Conduct which were ignored in the latest (August 2026) updates.
    ● Students, faculty, and staff have lost trust that sexual assault cases will be handled properly. The Cornell Police Department (CUPD) is not independent from the administration, which employees them and appoints their leadership. There are also numerous reports of poor experiences with the (newly renamed) Cornell Office of Civil Rights in their handling of Title IX reports. This will have a chilling effect on reporting, creating fear that reporting sexual assault to this administration will be ineffective and even damaging.

    Log in to Reply

17. I do not understand why some colleagues feel that the resolution is “vague,” “poorly-constructed, ill-timed, and performative.” These are adjectives that describe what the ADMINISTRATION has been doing, rather than this resolution.

    Evidence of administration’s “vagueness,” “poor-construction,” “ill-timed, and performative” gestures:
    – Admin has been reacting to negative PR rather than leading the campus. Resources are being offered two years after the fact, and only after this has become a global conversation.
    – Announcing the horrific crime in 2024 (multiple SA and drugging) and not providing follow-up information/lack of transparency
    – Not refunding Jane Doe’s tuition, forcing Jane Doe to remain on campus with her rapists.
    – Not expelling two students alleged to have participated in the rape, who are now back on campus, in classes with students. Classmates & TAs feel unsafe
    – Admin publicly made available the number of student sanctions for protest activity, including over 80 nonviolent protestors in the past few years, but would not disclose this number for S.A. cases in the S.A. task force town hall.

    Colleagues who oppose this resolution on the grounds that it is “performative” might also think that democracy is merely performative and that it’s perfectly normal to have a faculty senate with armed CUPD officials. I am ashamed that these are Ph.D. holders teaching our students.

    The administration has taken over our democratic process and attempted to control our speech, in direct violation of academic freedom, all before we even have a chance to discuss the no confidence resolution amongst ourselves. Never before has the faculty senate been advised about limitations on its speech activity in its own democratic forum.

    Log in to Reply

18. I would like to remind everyone that last spring Kotlikoff ran over a student’s foot. Rather than stop to make sure the student was OK, he drove home and composed an email in which he lied to all of us about what happened. In his email, he demonized the students in an effort to absolve himself of any responsibility for what had happened. What is more, he knew that the students were filming him, so he had to know that his lies would be revealed. This suggests either that he is stupid, which I do not believe, or that he acted with impunity, believing that it would not matter if his lies were revealed. In this he was proven correct; the upper administration, including the trustees, closed ranks around him and carried out a sham “investigation” that further demonized the students without even acknowledging that Kotlikoff had lied to the entire Cornell community. I’m baffled that anyone can still have confidence in this administration. They have clearly demonstrated a willful disregard for the safety of our students and a willingness to lie to all of us and demonize our students to stay in power. Can anyone seriously believe that students who experience sexual assault on this campus will feel comfortable turning to this administration for help?
    Paul Nadasdy
    Anthropology & American Indian and Indigenous Studies

    Log in to Reply

    • Are you referring to the incident when a small group of students harassed the President, followed him to his car, one of them stuck his foot under the wheel of said car, and they all then professed that they had no clue at all that his intentions were to back up when he turned on the car, which was in a parking lot with a building in front of the front bumper?

      I just want to be clear and sure that you are in fact speaking in support of the tremendous bad-faith efforts of those students and their publicity stunt, and not some other event of which most of us are unaware.

      I’m baffled that people can still continue to support the senators who keep supporting these bad-faith efforts, myself.

      Log in to Reply

      • What I consider to be in bad faith is the email Kotlikoff sent to all of us immediately after the event transpired, wherein he describes the event as follows:
        “They continued to follow me to my car and then surrounded the car, banging on the windows, blocking the car, and shouting. I waited until I saw space behind the car and then, using my car’s rear pedestrian alert and automatic braking system, was able to slowly maneuver my car from the parking space and exit the parking lot.”

        Two days later CUPD released the security footage, which does not show “banging on the windows”, and shows him backing up into (and over) the students despite Kotlikoff saying he “waited until I saw space behind the car”: https://statements.cornell.edu/2026/20260501-video-of-incident-at-day-hall.cfm

        Do you not have an issue with a university president using the power of his office to falsely set a narrative about a conflict he was at the center of before we see footage telling a different story? Whether or not you agree with the actions of the students, do you not see any fault in how Kotlikoff acted both during and in the immediate aftermath of this event?

        Log in to Reply

        • I don’t have an issue with the President of the University accurately relaying what he observed to happen. The videos entirely support his view. They show students standing directly in the blind spots of his car, out of view of the backup camera – totally consistent with him being unable to see him, and totally disregarding the advice nearly every parent gives every child, namely ‘Why are you standing behind that car? Do you want to get hit??’ These are basic things we learn in driver’s education classes – NO driver has perfect vision behind their vehicle.

          As for ‘banging on the car’ we do not see that – we do see contact made, however. And anyone who has ever spent time in a car during rain knows that the average vehicle amplifies sound. His claims are ENTIRELY consistent with what we saw.

          The only bad faith was by the students, and by those continuing to support them by fabricating a narrative in which the students did nothing wrong, or that the President really did anything wrong.

          Log in to Reply

19. The students will view this vote carefully. They need us to be clear at this point that we do not support the way the Jane Doe case was handled. A vote of no confidence demonstrates the faculty’s support of the students. Two things can be true at once: one can feel that the current administration MAY be capable of righting itself and redressing the sexual assault issue on campus AND at the same time express no confidence in their handling of the Jane Doe case to date. Our students MUST take priority at this moment, and a NO vote will strain student/faculty relations. and exacerbate the current anger and frustration among the student body.

    Log in to Reply

20. This resolution is merely a statement that we do not have confidence in the current administration to address the crisis of sexual assault on our campus. The questions of whether there should be resignations and demands is an entirely separate one and one that we must deliberate, democratically, as the various governing bodies of the institution. The administration largely ignored our recommendations in the past and I don’t have confidence that they will incorporate our recommendations in the future. I want to convey that lack of confidence to our administration (and to our students, who are watching this vote closely, looking to see whether their professors condone the university’s actions thus far) and to demand more democratic governance so we can address this crisis with progressive and inclusive leadership. That’s all this vote is, a demand for far better governance, whether from MK and KB or from others. I strongly support a yes vote.

    Log in to Reply

21. I strongly oppose the Faculty Senate resolution expressing no confidence in the “central administration.”

    The resolution is vague. Specific offices, leaders, or objectionable actions of “the central administration” are not identified. A vote of no confidence is among the most serious steps the Cornell Faculty Senate can take. Senators should not be asked to vote on a consequential statement without clarity about whom it addresses and what accountability it seeks.

    The resolution also asserts that the central administration lacks the ability to “effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell University.” That conclusion is at the very least premature. The independent review initiated by the trustees should be allowed to proceed thoroughly, independently, and without prejudging its recommendations. A rush to judgment is unwise and could do irreparable damage to Cornell.

    Sexual assault is a profoundly serious and pervasive problem, on our campus and on campuses throughout the country. Cornell must support survivors, respond appropriately to reports of misconduct, and continually assess whether its policies, procedures, and culture are meeting the standards all members of our community deserve. I plan to support appropriate actions based on the findings of the independent review.

    A vote of no confidence now is akin to passengers on a plane encountering turbulence and deciding, mid-flight, to remove a capable pilot from the cockpit – only to find that none of them know how to land it.

    I have had substantial interactions with President Kotlikoff for more than a decade. In my experience, he is a thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent, and effective leader. A responsive listener, he has repeatedly demonstrated strong leadership during some very challenging times at Cornell. I have full confidence in his ability to respond effectively to the challenges posed by sexual assault.

    For these reasons, I urge Faculty Senate members to vote against this resolution and to allow the independent review to guide future decisions regarding institutional accountability and changes to leadership.

    Geoff Coates
    Tisch University Professor

    Log in to Reply

22. I strongly endorse the comments of Prof. Brian Crane and others who make the case that we should be advocating for better policies and constructive outcomes, rather than arguing over poorly-constructed, ill-timed, and performative resolutions that serve little substantive purpose and might instead hamper constructive change. To undermine our university’s leadership, which is navigating our beloved institution through some extraordinarily difficult challenges at a perilous time, is hardly going to serve our university or our community well. We certainly need change and the faculty senate’s collective wisdom could help develop a clear set of policies that we then forcefully advocate for. We need to serve our students and community better by using our influence to create and promote a better culture that makes our campus safer for everyone, rather than expressing our shared anguish through actions that serve no purpose other than adding to the turmoil.

    Eswar Prasad
    Cornell S.C. Johnson College of Business

    Log in to Reply

23. The crisis of sexual assault and harassment at Cornell is undeniable. Whether other institutions experience similar rates of violence does not excuse our own. That our leadership has been aware for years that more than 1 in 5 undergraduate women report experiencing sexual assault while at Cornell and their response was to establish a task force, is sufficient information on which to base my vote.

    The actions announced after Jane Doe’s civil suit—timed to come out the day before the faculty senate discussed the no confidence resolution—show a desperate reaction to negative media exposure, rather than a long-term commitment to systemic change. Yes, banning fraternity parties is an important step. But no, it won’t change the culture of hazing, social power of frats, or the administration’s use of Title IX to make these issues go away.

    The senate may also decide to bring forth resolutions that recommend the kind of systemic changes we haven’t seen. I would welcome and support those. But I firmly believe that the administration will not take our advice seriously, or act on it, unless they feel public pressure to do so. As we saw when we overwhelmingly weighed in on the overuse of temporary suspensions last year, the administration ignored our voices and continued along the course it had set without any changes. What confidence could we have that they would suddenly let start listening and acting now?

    Because I have none, I will be voting for this resolution.

    Log in to Reply