On Wednesday, April 14, the Faculty Senate opened debate on anti-racism proposals from three student-faculty task forces proposing a new anti-racism center, mandatory faculty anti-racism training, and a university-wide graduation requirement to take an anti-racism course for credit. The debate was carried over to April 21 with both sides urging Faculty Senators to consult with the rest of the faculty on this divisive issue before the final vote.
Last July, online petitions called for Cornell to create a new anti-racism center and required classes, and President Pollack sent proposals to the Faculty Senate. Three task forces that included radical students involved in the petitions as well as anti-racist faculty then drafted interim and final reports. Unlike most faculty reports which contain specific enumerated recommendations, the task forces could not find a set of plans that would be acceptable to both the anti-racist proponents and to traditional faculty concerns. At least one faculty task force member complained that his task force was not given the opportunity to vote upon the final report.
Instead, the interim reports were rewritten to be more vague and to remove specifics that had drawn objections. Further, the three final reports were then summarized on one page summaries that also did not contain a specific set of recommendations. To further confuse what the Faculty was asked to approve, the Dean of the Faculty drafted three short motions to endorse the task force reports, without any comment or explanation. As made more clear by the Dean of the Faculty’s slide presentations, financial details, program scope, and quality controls would all be worked out by the President and Provost. The Dean wrote, “Please appreciate that discussions about resources and implementation take place AFTER the Senate handoff to the President and Provost.” So, essentially, the proposal is to “launder” three controversial proposals from anti-racism activists last summer through the faculty and back to the President to give her a blank slate to handle it without addressing the many serious comments and concerns raised by senior faculty.
The Faculty Senate is asked to rely upon the Dean of the Faculty’s oral presentation, slideshow and one page summaries, rather than the debate and conclusions that should have been carefully hammered out and finalized by the task forces. The Dean of the Faculty also curated the online comments submitted by the faculty on his website about these plans.
For example, the proposed anti-racism center would be controlled by a council that the proponents want composed of 25 BIPOC students drawn from various BIPOC interest groups on campus, 16 faculty and 9 administrators. Cornell’s other academic centers are not run by a 50% student governing board, so faculty understandably are concerned. However, the one-page summary says there will be an Internal Governing Council without discussing its membership. So, if the faculty votes out the one sentence resolution, is it approving a BIPOC-student run council?
Similarly, the required student course has evolved from a 4-credit hour class taught by the new center (with the associated tuition dollars allocated to the center), to 2-credit hours taught by the center and 2-credit hours taught by each student’s college, to a set of instructional resources produced by the center and delivered in a menu of racism-relevant courses taught by the colleges. The one-page summary leaves open the question of whether only BIPOC faculty will dictate the new Cornell theology that students must “learn” about race and bias in society. When a faculty member at the April 14 meeting asked about whether the slide stating “Unfair burdens must not be placed on BIPOC faculty and students” meant that there would be an exemption for BIPOCs faculty and students from taking the training, the Dean assured him that it was no such planned exemption.
Some faculty recommended sending the proposals back to the committee for further study, but the Dean of the Faculty insisted that the task forces are done and all next steps are in the hands of the President and Provost. So, the only option available to the Faculty Senate to have a meaningful impact on a proposal that is so threatening to academic freedom and freedom of conscience is to offer substitute motions at the April 21 meeting. In this manner, the eVote taken by the faculty following that meeting will help shape Cornell anti-racism actions. Some of the items that could be covered by a substitute motion include:
- Any action to make the voluntary programs offered by the Office of Faculty Development and Diversity (OFDD) mandatory should require express faculty approval after a detailed review of their content and effectiveness.
- The college faculties rather than the University Faculty should consider any proposed for-credit anti-racism courses.
- Any anti-racism center should be governed by a faculty-administrator committee without voting student representation.
- As with all Cornell academic programs, the anti-racism center must be open to all without regard to gender, race, religion, color, creed or national origin.
- The Faculty Senate should reaffirm its commitment to academic excellence, and DEI statements should not be a factor in reappointment or in granting tenure.
- The Faculty Senate should appoint a committee to draft a definition of “DEI”, as the comments show a serious dispute about its meaning and conflict with Cornell’s Core Values.
- Adding DEI questions to student course evaluation surveys should be left to the college faculties and not mandated by the University Faculty.
- Any proposed “cultural center” should be funded by the VP for Student and Campus Life in competition with all other student activities and cultural programs rather than by the Provost in competition with starving academic departments.
- The new center’s mission should not include advocating “for full BIPOC representation in all academic units and decision-making bodies,” particularly without a definition of “full representation.”
Are there Faculty Senators with the political courage to add some teeth to the proposed vacuous resolutions?
This article as published by a member of the Cornell community who requested to remain anonymous.
