“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.”
– Winston Churchill
All federal officials from the president down to the lowest army private take an oath of office to “preserve and protect the Constitution” from “all enemies foreign and domestic.” Similarly, every school age student dutifully recites the “Pledge of Allegiance” to the flag. There is a lot of debate recently as to what loyalty our government officials or common citizens owe to our nation.
This leads to the parallel question, what loyalty do the trustees, faculty and administrators owe to Cornell and its students? Cornell has an elaborate ceremony when a new president takes office, with as much grandeur as a U.S. president’s inauguration. Even faculty and administrators have to mechanically chant “Go Big Red” (or worse, recite the land acknowledgement before meetings and lectures). Students reciprocate by purchasing red clothes printed with “#yellcornell” or other slogans. (If you doubt this, just attend the Homecoming football game or a home ice hockey game.)
What idea is behind all of this? Since students are paying tuition to fund a large part of Cornell’s budget, it is important to sort out who owes what exactly to whom.
The Competitive Culture of Higher Education
Many people view Cornell as a large monolithic institution with a consolidated reputation that can advance or decline in comparison with all of the other elite research institutions. (A minority view, held by sports fans, would have us compete with other schools based upon athletic team success – against even big football factory schools.) Still the perhaps unfair idea is that Cornell as a whole has a reputation that is more than the sum of its parts. Students pick Cornell based upon its reputation.
School reputation is reported in many different ways, including the US. News & World Report (12th), Forbes (12th), Times of Higher Education / Wall Street Journal (24th) and Washington Monthly (10th) rankings. People also watch more specialized rankings measuring specific aspects of Cornell such as the FIRE free speech rankings (212th). The entering class’ average score on the SAT or ACT, as well as high school GPAs are also compared. Colleges boast about recent graduates’ earnings or endowment per student.
Because these rankings are so public and universities are so competitive, college administrators actually worry about such metrics. Perhaps this is to the detriment of the actual investments in the quality and meaning of a Cornell education. But the assumption is that Cornell and its students will automatically benefit if the rankings improve.
Quality of Education and Focus on Students
When Cornell was founded, the founding principle was “any person … any study”. The statement clearly informed the public of where Cornell stood in terms of its need to serve the State of New York as well as its own students. Any person, regardless of financial means would be welcomed, and once here, the students could find instruction in “any study.” Unlike other older colleges, Cornell would not be restricted to studying the classics and history in the original Latin and Greek. Instead, Cornell allowed instruction in the useful and practical arts, applying a scientific discipline to agriculture and engineering.
This was revolutionary because Ezra Cornell and A.D. White showed they cared deeply for their students both financially and intellectually, in a tangible manner. In a word, early Cornell put the students first.
Does a student-first focus mean doing what is best for the students or just trying to attract the best students? As can be seen by the September Admissions Task Force report, Cornell’s goal is no longer to take the students with the best academic preparation or the most gifted students, but rather Cornell will continue to prioritize a “diverse” set of students over those other measures. To do this, Cornell will hire more staff. Again, the task force did not consider the impact of this decision upon Cornell’s current students or the future value of a Cornell degree.
Since World War II, with the expansion of the modern research university highly dependent on grants to fund faculty research, “any study” began to mean what research could gain grants rather than what students really were interested in studying. The academic endeavor shifted from seeking truth to seeking funding to build an ever growing research machine. Cornell’s stake in this was the “overhead” factor paid to Cornell with every grant. Such overhead added onto tuition as an important funding source for Cornell operations.
Now, many people argue that Cornell will improve if research funding and labs expand. Yet, big time research led many faculty to shift focus from undergraduate instruction to the care and feeding of graduate students and their own research teams..
As Cornell grew into a 21st Century “modern” university, the loyalty of faculty and administrators became less focused upon students and more on a self-perpetuating quest for increased institutional prestige.
Who Speaks for Students?
One would hope that at least the Student Assembly (SA) as the elected representatives of undergraduates would profess a loyalty to the best interest of students. Recent actions show that the SA is more interested in virtue signaling and advancing extreme left-wing causes.
For example, SA Resolution 21 expresses support for an effort by Cornell Graduate Students United to form an NLRB union even though that union could potentially reallocate a significant sum of unrestricted tuition dollars to meeting union demands over other pressing student priorities. Nor is the SA willing to protect those students who do not want to unionize. Years ago, SA resolutions would contain whereas clauses to explain why the resolution was good for Cornell, but now whereas clauses just appeal to vague social justice goals
Similarly, the faculty traditionally tried to advance the general welfare of students. However, last week, approximately 250 faculty signed an open letter urging the Ithaca Common Council to reject a 21-year deal approving a $4 million voluntary payment to Ithaca. If the alternative proposal to increase the voluntary payment to $11 million per year were to be approved, that would mean $440 per student per year of tuition diverted to city needs rather than serving student needs.
Another example of faculty promoting a political agenda over student welfare is a group of faculty who advocate that, “The University shall return all lands in the Ithaca area not immediately utilized for educational purposes to the traditional Gayogo̱hó꞉nǫʼ [Cayuga nation] leadership.” Again, this would divert tens of millions of dollars from students to benefit just one faction of the local Cayugas.
The Dean of Students and other administrative staff of the Division of Student and Campus Life claim to “strive to promote an educational environment where [students] can thrive in pursuit of your academic and personal goals.” Yet, its budget diverts millions each year from academic staffing to pay for full time administrative staff to promote controversial activities like bias response teams, an Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, and Centers for Student Equity, Empowerment, and Belonging.
The majority of students never asked for these recently expanded bureaucracies, and many students would argue that they work to devalue the student experience rather than enhance it. Similarly, Marla Love, the Dean of Students, appears to prioritize her own notion of diversity (“I am deeply invested in cultivating transformational student experiences”) over general student welfare. An overemphasis on identity politics conflates advancing the entire student body with perpetuating historic disparities.
None of these spending priorities or claims on the tuition fisk relate to enhancing Cornell’s standing or reputation. They will not enhance the student experience or the value of a Cornell degree in the workplace. Yet, financial decisions are being made as if Cornell had infinite resources without anyone actively advocating to give students full value for their tuition dollars.
Although the traditional expectation is that trustees, faculty and administrators owe a duty of loyalty to Cornell and its students, this expectation is largely unspoken. If advocates were required to expressly explain how their proposals embody their duty of loyalty to Cornell, the number of extreme or counterproductive schemes would be greatly reduced. Perhaps it’s time for university stakeholders to prioritize loyalty to Big Red!
