The “Do Better Cornell” anti-racism initiative is now up for a set of Faculty Senate votes. These votes mark an important turning point that could potentially shift Cornell from a truth-seeking institution that is free to educate objectively to one where students and faculty both must parrot critical race theory (CRT) orthodoxy in order to survive.
On April 21, the Faculty Senate completed its debate on the proposed anti-racism center which is now out for an eVote through April 29. Debate on two related proposals addressing faculty and student requirements are continued over to May 5, with final eVotes expected in mid-May. The proposals drew a number of negative comments, including an important critique from the the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)
Prior to the April 21 debate, the University Faculty Committee put forward a substitute set of motions that replaced the proposed blanket endorsement of the three task force reports with three separate resolutions that each report is “worthy of careful consideration by the President and Provost” but that decision to implement them would require “broad, transparent consultation with the faculty.” Apart from the three task forces, the Dean of the Faculty convened a series of meetings with faculty from the programs most likely to be involved in assembling the proposed anti-racism course, and they ended up filing comments opposing the plan. It had also become known that the reports had not been subject to a final up or down vote, but were rather a series of drafts from the Dean of the Faculty with emails requesting comments from each task force. Similarly, the Faculty Senate debate consisted of a slide presentation by the Dean of the Faculty and the Associate Dean. The discussion drew comments in opposition from Senators with each followed by a rebuttal from the Dean or Associate Dean. The “party line” was made clear that Senators should vote “yes” on each resolution in order to pass this hot potato back to the President and Provost.
At the end of the debate, it was clear that everyone had good intentions to improve the racial climate on campus, but that the proposals remained poorly defined and many questioned whether the proposals would improve matters. The Dean invited further specific motions to put to a vote and promised that the electronic ballot would contain a text box for further comment.
Anti-racism Center. The word “anti-racism” was dropped from the name of the proposed “Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures.” The plan to fund it with the tuition (some estimate at $12 million) associated with teaching an anti-racism class required of each undergraduate, graduate and professional student has been deferred to the President. Unlike Cornell’s other academic centers that do not include undergraduate leaders, the Internal Governing Council would consist of faculty, administrators and BIPOC-only students. The center “must advocate for full BIPOC representation in all academic units and decision-making bodies” without defining “full representation” or explaining how to address the alleged over-representation of Jews or Asian Americans. “Additional faculty lines” would be funded within the Center.
The task force sees the Center having “an ongoing and effective relationship between the center and these graduate fields, departments and programs: the Africana Studies and Research Center, the American Indian and Indigenous Studies Program, Asian American Studies, Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Latino/a Studies, and American Studies.” So, the Center will focus far beyond just the current anti-black racism, to include challenges faced by women and by LGBTQ people. Yet, so much of the report is focused upon BIPOC students, faculty and post-docs, excluding all others interested in the topic.
Faculty Task Force. The major controversy here focuses upon the proposal to include a “DEI statement” in a decision to renew a professor or to grant tenure. The ACTA letter notes other campuses have used this requirement to make the faculty member’s diversity record a precondition for having the review rather than just one factor in weighing overall academic excellence. Having defined Cornell’s Core Values in 2019, one would expect that the required statement would explain how the faculty member worked to implement all the Core Values rather than some ill-defined notion of “DEI” which is much narrower and fails to include diversity of viewpoint or academic freedom.
The task force did not adopt the DoBetterCornell proposal to include undergraduate students on faculty hiring panels.
The task force wants to add a DEI question onto the end-of-semester student course evaluation questionnaire to identify faculty who make students feel uncomfortable. While the task force wants to weaponize these surveys against white male faculty, it also notes, “BIPOC and women faculty … are likely to receive harsher evaluations shaped by forces of bias, racism and sexism within our student body.” Perhaps the task force should have considered that all students are now trained to be aware of and encouraged to report “microaggressions.”
Finally, the task force advocates 1.5 to 2 hours of mandatory anti-racism training, notwithstanding the amount of voluntary faculty training available and the large level of existing participation. Faculty must remain able to object to training that is contrary to their religious or philosophical beliefs and to “vote with their feet” on low quality training that wastes their time. Although there is much evidence to show that mandatory anti-racism training engenders resentment that is counter-productive, the only argument for the requirement is that DoBetterCornell presented this request to the Faculty Senate on August 26 and the Faculty must show sympathy for their request.
Mandatory Student For-Credit Class. The key debate here is why should this class be structured to indoctrinate Critical Race Theory (CRT) rather than involve scholars from Philosophy, Law, and History to explain society as composed of unique individuals with rights and responsibilities. Again, the curriculum will emphasize the history of oppression and the skills “to communicate and advocate across the differences” rather than emphasizing all of Cornell’s Core Values.
The debate will continue on May 5, but there are many questions left unaddressed such as if a student ends up studying for more than one Cornell degree, will the student have to take the course twice? Will the course be graded or just S/U? If a Masters in Engineering requires only 30 hours of courses, this requirement will be 13% of the total instruction. Is that too much?
Currently, all incoming Cornell students take 1.5 hours of training from IDP as a part of orientation. Why is this not sufficient, and why is a required for-credit class necessary? Will the orientation IDP training be dropped if the for-credit class comes mandatory?
Finally, the role of the University Faculty in this debate is unclear. The only requirements currently imposed by the University Faculty are two semesters of Physical Education and the swim test. All degree requirements are imposed by the college faculties. If the argument is that academic classes are essential to a Cornell degree, shouldn’t this be decided by each college separately? The Center task force wants this course to be administered and taught within the Center, but shouldn’t all academic instruction be taught by a college and administered by the college’s Dean?
Dean of the Faculty Election. Dean of the Faculty Charles Van Loan has been the prime mover in all three task forces, and his term ends this year. As this debate enters its final days, voting has already begun for his successor. Two candidates are running to serve a three-year term: Eve DeRosa and Risa Lieberwitz. Prof. Lieberwitz has a career that focuses upon defending academic freedom and is serving as national General Counsel to the Association of American University Professors (AAUP). Prof. DeRosa is an Associate Professor specializing in the neurochemical basis of human behavior. The next Dean will play a pivotal role in determining whether the faculty remains involved in this issue.
Cornell must decide whether it will remain dedicated to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry as outlined in the Core Values or whether it will enforce a CRT ideology upon all of its students and faculty. These votes will be a bellwether as zealots seek to push Cornell away from the path that has brought success for its first 150 years.
This article was authored by a member of the Cornell community who requested to stay anonymous.
