After a turbulent few months for Cornell, the Board of Trustees voted “unanimously” in support of President Martha Pollack’s leadership.
Last week, in the most recent struggle faced by the Cornell administration, former trustee Jon Lindseth released a scathing open letter asking for Pollack’s resignation. Lindseth’s chief complaint was Pollack’s support of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at Cornell.
In response, Pollack invited Nadine Strossen, Professor Emeritus of New York University and former President of the American Civil Liberties Union, to address the free speech issues raised in the Lindseth letter. Strossen delivered remarks at the Trustees’ weekend meeting.
Cornell immediately responded to Lindseth’s letter, with Kraig Kayser (chairman of the Board of Trustees) stating: “For nearly seven years, I have strongly supported President Pollack, and that support remains strong today.”
Over the weekend, the Board of Trustees met in New York City for one of its regular quarterly meetings. The agenda was set far in advance of the meeting – well before Lindseth released his letter – though the Trustees seized the opportunity to express their support for Pollack.
According to a statement released to the Review from Cornell Media Relations, the Board of Trustees “remain[s] committed to advancing the critical work of Cornell’s mission: teaching, research, and public engagement; and we look forward to continuing to advance it under President Pollack’s leadership.”
“Under President Martha E. Pollack’s leadership,” the Trustees said in the statement, Cornell has “remained faithful” to Cornell’s mission of “any person, any study, … and to the core values that unite our institution.”
Cornell thus seems immune from the instability that has engulfed the administrations of other universities, Harvard being the most prominent example.
A settled question?
Dale R. Corson, Cornell’s eighth president and a renowned physicist, noted that “the Trustees act by potential energy, not kinetic energy.” – meaning the possibility of an individual trustee raising an issue is far more influential than the whole Board voting on a specific policy change.
It remains to be seen whether DEI’s newfound attention at the Board of Trustees level will yield any changes in the Cornell bureaucracy.
An important concern expressed by the Lindseth letter is that the manner that Cornell implements DEI conflicts with merit. Given that Cornell is now under investigation by the Department of Education, all of Cornell will be more mindful of its core values, mission and “any person … any study” ethos.
