Resolution to Request an Annual University Report on Academic Freedom
Whereas: the Cornell faculty welcome students with diverse backgrounds from across the globe to pursue world-class education opportunities without obstruction on the basis of legally protected status;
Whereas: the Cornell Faculty Senate affirms that freedoms to engage in research and scholarship, to teach and to learn, to express oneself and to be heard, and to assemble and to protest, peacefully and lawfully, are essential to the function of the university, even for ideas some may consider wrong or offensive;
Whereas: faculty, students, and staff of Cornell University are entitled to due process, according to Cornell policies, with clear and fair procedures to draw conclusions and inform decisions at times when allegations of misconduct, harassment, and/or discrimination places them in potential violation of Cornell policies;
Whereas: a functioning university depends on the transparency, trust, clarity, consistency, and cooperation that derives from shared governance, where faculty have access to information, involvement in matters of concern to them, the authority to examine these issues and make recommendations, and to question all sanctions (dismissals, warnings, reprimands, course cancellations, etc.);*
Whereas: in the case of the “Resolution Condemning the Cancellation of Professor Eric Cheyfitz’s Classes and Threats of Further Severe Disciplinary Action”, the Faculty Senate discussion and resulting vote revealed low trust by a substantial number of faculty in the reliability of the University’s disciplinary procedures and the implementation of those procedures by the University Administration;
Be it therefore resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that the University Administration strengthen trust in the university’s processes without disclosing confidential information by publishing an annual university transparency report on academic freedom. Such a report would disclose the number of external requests and internal disciplinary proceedings that involve the University Administration regarding faculty, student, and staff speech and behavior. The report would also include aggregate counts of incidents by group (faculty, student, and staff) across types of protected action (speech, behavior, etc.) and stage of disciplinary proceedings (complaint, investigation, resolution, appeal, etc.).
Draft resolution proposed by:
Bryan L. Sykes, Senator, Brooks School of Public Policy
J. Nathan Matias, Senator, Department of Communication
Faculty Senators Supporting this Resolution (in alphabetical order)
Ken Birman, Computer Science
Michelle Crow, Arts and Sciences College RTE
Chris B. Schaffer, Biomedical Engineering
Faculty Supporting this Resolution
David Bateman, Government and Public Policy
Shannon Gleeson, Global Labor & Work
Dan Hirschman, Sociology
*Removed “, as “guardian[s] of academic values against unjustified assaults from its own members,” per the the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recommendations” after Faculty Senate meeting motion/vote on March 11, 2026
2 thoughts on "Resolution to Request an Annual University Report on Academic Freedom"
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear commenter, thank you for these thoughtful comments. Nathan Matias here. Bryan and I had a chance to discuss your comments and consider them in our resolutions.
Re the AAUP, we think it’s important to cite the source of the values we think everyone could reasonably acknowledge. We do not think that voters need necessarily consider a vote for this to be an endorsement of the AAUP as an organization or all of its activities.
Re mention of the Cheyfitz case, we understand your point about the value of diplomacy. At the same time, we think it’s fair to acknowledge the origin of this, whether or not its comfortable to recall. And similarly, support for this resolution does not imply a particular position on that case.
Finally, you raise a good point in your comment that “the actual be-it-resolved would not have changed the outcome” of the Cheyfitz case. The other resolutions are designed to improve the process. This resolution is focused more on obtaining wider transparency from the university in aggregate. We think it’s still worth pursuing that transparency. As we have seen in the conversation about student discipline, information about organizational processes can be very powerful and informative.
I would strongly recommend getting rid of the reference to the AAUP – this is an outside organization that does not represent all faculty at Cornell, and inclusion in this resolution thus defeats the purpose of the resolution – to build trust and enhance faculty engagement. Surely some sort of statement of values can be generated which does not rely upon this outside organization, and does not effectively tell faculty who do are not represented that they are not part of the campus core values.
I would similarly suggest not bringing up the case of Dr. Cheyfitz – the vote did demonstrate what is suggested, but ALSO demonstrated that an even greater number of faculty DO have faith in the administration’s ability to administer disciplinary cases, crucial context which the authors do not include. This is a needlessly divisive ‘whereas’ that effectively tells the majority that their views are unimportant. The ‘whereas’ material would be perfectly sufficient without this paragraph.
Finally – this is clearly at least partially in response to the Cheyfitz case (as demonstrated by the above paragraph’s inclusion), and the actual be-it-resolved would not have changed the outcome there. Specifically – the administration explained that in their view, that disciplinary action had nothing at all to do with speech rights, and everything to do with civil rights – it would not have been included in the report being requested. Indeed, the be-it-resolved suggests that the report should cover disciplinary cases across ‘protected actions’ – but protected actions are typically not the actions receiving discipline. One can easily imagine the administration, in good faith, providing a yearly report with zero data, in full compliance with the demand, which will simply anger those faculty who believe the administration is not acting in good faith.