In conjunction with the 55th anniversary of the Willard Straight Hall takeover and Black History Month, the Cornell Review advocated that Cornell should establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the same spirit as the Republic of South Africa. A non-profit in Colorado set up a similar commission which delivered its report last summer.
Last spring’s Arts Quad Encampment, Op-ed columns in the Sun, a petition signed by 74 graduating seniors, and a Departmental blog all have raised a controversy over how Cornell University treated indigenous people and whether Cornell–rather than society as a whole–owes reparations for stolen land. The loudest advocates for the claims that Cornell has been harming Native Americans has been the faculty of the Cornell American Indian & Indigenous Studies Program (AIISP)
An Oct. 30 Sun story also quotes Cornell indigenous student leaders as demanding more effort to recruit more indigenous students to Cornell. The story also reported that Prof. Jodi Byrd has left Cornell for the University of Chicago.
Other universities have formed truth and reconciliation commissions on indigenous claims, and Cornell has the moral strength to host a legitimate, objective inquiry as well. The commission would subject the AIISP’s generalized claims to rigorous peer review for the first time.
Cornell’s history regarding Native Americans has never been so politicized and distorted. Perhaps a second Truth and Reconciliation Commission covering just this topic would finally allow wounds to heal and put to rest a lot of the misinformation and turmoil before it irreversibly harms our sense of community. The Commission could consider the following questions:
Cornell was founded in 1865, long after the Federal Government took the land in question from the Native Americans. What role did Cornell play in indigenous dispossession?
The AIISP’s allegations of wrong-doing lack specifics. Prof. Jodi Byrd writes:
“Cornell would not exist without the almost one million acres its founder personally helped steal from over 251 Indigenous nations and communities throughout North America. When Indigenous students and scholars refer to Cornell’s founding as genocidal, they mean that literally.”
The AIISP’s webpage accuses Cornell:
“To date the university has neither officially acknowledged its complicity in this theft nor has it offered any form of restitution to the hundreds of Native communities impacted.“
The Federal Government gave land to homesteaders and to the trans-continental railroads in addition to the land grant universities. As the US frontier was settled, Native Americans generally relocated further west and ultimately to reservations. Did Cornell’s land agents–who were supervised by Ezra Cornell–do anything directly to Native Americans? Was Cornell’s actions as a newly-minted landowner illegal or markedly different from other land owners?
If not, the AIISP seems to be arguing that land was valuable to indigenous cultures and that they did not share the Western notion of land ownership. Because the value transferred to Land Grant colleges under the 1862 Morrill Act was in land, but the later 1890 Morrill Act transferred money, Land Grant colleges in general, and Cornell in particular, have a larger debt to Native Americans than homesteaders or railroads provided with federal lands.
There must be a limiting principle to what AIISP is advocating. If not, then why not have Cornell send a letter to every faculty, employee, and student’s parents asking them to immediately surrender their family homes to the nearest tribe? All of the land in the United States (except for current reservations) was at some time claimed by Native Americans. The time gap between the taking of the land and Cornell’s later acquisition of the land seems to be an important factor. Equally important is that the tribes lost in court on their land claims.
The commission should draw a clear line between what the government did to the Native Americans and what actions Cornell later took. Given President Trump’s recent election victory, it would seem that the body politic would not be sympathetic to large federal compensation claims to indigenous tribes.
Has Cornell used the funding provided by the Morrill Act in the manner intended by the Congress?
At the time, some critics accused Ezra Cornell of attempting to profit personally from the management of Cornell or its land investments. He was cleared of such charges. Other critics have charged, including AIISP, that it was somehow wrong or evil that Cornell got far more land and money from its Land Grant than other states. Yet, the 1862 Morrill Act distributed land based on the number of representatives in Congress, so New York received more benefits because of its higher population and the willingness to delay land sales past market gluts.
Cornell has done everything required by Congress including teaching agriculture, engineering and even ROTC. If AIISP can prove otherwise, then the remedy is to give money back to the Federal Government.
Is there any evidence of Cornell discriminating against Native Americans?
Cornell has both a moral obligation and a legal obligation under civil rights laws to not discriminate against Native American students or staff. The AIISP assumes that because indigenous people make up 1.7% of the U.S. population but only 0.3% of current Cornell students, there must be discrimination. However, the recent Harvard and UNC Supreme Court decisions have found that discrimination on the basis of race in college admissions to achieve such quotas is itself illegal discrimination.
It may be more accurate to use New York State’s indigenous population (0.4%) as a benchmark than a national figure for enrollment yardsticks.
Again, if AIISP has any evidence of Cornell discriminating against Native Americans, it should share it with the commission.
Should Cornell voluntarily give back lands in Tompkins County to the Cayuga (also known as the Gayogo̱hó:nǫʼ people”) or any other indigenous group?
The list of formal demands jointly developed by the AIISP and student groups, including the BSU, Climate Justice Cornell and Haven, were presented to the University Assembly (UA) and Day Hall in 2020. One demand included:
“The university shall return all lands in the Ithaca area not immediately utilized for educational purposes to the traditional Gayogohó꞉nǫʼ leadership. The University shall build and maintain channels of communication with the traditional Gayogohó꞉nǫʼ leadership until the land return process is complete.”
The UA endorsed all of the demands as drafted in its Resolution #2, which was rejected by President Pollack. The phrase “traditional Gayogohó꞉nǫ leadership” seems innocent, but was intended to name only one of two factions of the Seneca Fall, NY based Cayuga tribe. That faction is in a violent struggle with the Halftown faction that is currently recognized as the tribe’s leadership by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The demand was hopelessly vague in terms of what land fits the definition of “immediately utilized for educational purposes.”
Again, the history of the Cayuga Nation was that although they once occupied portions of Tompkins County, they later relocated to the North end of Cayuga Lake. Hence, the small number of Cayugas who returned to the area settled near Seneca Falls rather than Ithaca. In addition, most Cayugas live on reservations in Oklahoma and Ontario.
In January 2024, AIISP sent a proposal to Day Hall demanding that Cornell turn over a portion of Arnot Forest, a Cornell teaching forest located 30 miles southwest of Ithaca, to a 501(c)(3) non-profit aligned with one of the Cayuga factions. The document claimed the private donation of land to the non-profit would allow the Cayugas to benefit from owning land “outside the fraught politics of federally-recognized tribal territory.” In other words, AIISP was advocating a bypass of both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Halftown faction.
The AIISP never explained the emphasis on the Cayugas obtaining land in Tompkins County as compared to Cayuga County, which is just east of Seneca Falls, NY. An important reason could be that in 2013 the Oneida Nation and New York State reached an important settlement when the Turning Stone Casino was given an exclusive franchise for a 10-county area that prohibits a casino in Cayuga County but not in Tompkins County.
Building a major casino in Tompkins County would provide quick access to the residents of Ithaca, Binghamton, Elmira, and Cortland as well as to the college students studying there.
Although Cornell sold all of the surface interests in the land by 1935, some faculty claim that Cornell retained ownership in some of the mineral interests on some of the properties. What should Cornell do with these subsurface property rights?
Typically, when property has valuable mineral deposits, such as oil and natural gas beneath it, the property owner can separate the surface interest from the mineral interest to allow the separate owners to make the best development of each. According to AIISP, when Cornell sold its timberlands in northern Wisconsin, it retained 50% of the mineral interests of each parcel. Although Cornell thought it had sold all of the surface interests by 1935, Cornell apparently still owns this interest.
The value of these mineral interests is unclear. This area is not known for fracking to produce oil or natural gas. Indeed, if Cornell’s technology for harvesting deep geothermal energy proves valuable, it is not clear whether the geology of northern Wisconsin would be suitable for that either.
At this time, Cornell lacks the in-house expertise to maximize the value of these mineral interests, and just holding on to them does not help Cornell financially nor optimize society’s use of these assets. So, the commission should probably recommend selling them to the highest bidder. If nobody wants to purchase them on the open market, there are always two parties with a built-in incentive for wanting to purchase them on a property-by-property basis. First, the current surface interest owner values the mineral interest, in order to avoid seeing oil well drilling in his backyard. Second, the owner of the other 50% of the mineral interest would value it, because it is easier to develop when the owner holds the full 100% of the mineral rights.
Although the AIISP would probably argue for donating the mineral interests to Native Americans, there are serious obstacles to giving this property away. First, there are no records linking specific plots of land to specific Wisconsin tribes. Second, any compensation owed is owed by the Federal Government and not by Cornell. Third, the federal government under the Morrill Act provided the land grants for specific purposes, and 21st Century reparations was not one of them.
It is time to sell these mineral interests and invest the proceeds into Cornell’s endowment.
How should Cornell walk the line between honoring its founders, donors and US veterans while being welcoming to both its non-indigenous and Indigenous students?
The AIISP appears to be borrowing from a playbook used at Midwestern and Western Land Grant Universities with campuses built on the actual acreage granted by the Morrill Act. In contrast, Ezra Cornell paid full price when he purchased his farm from a prior European-American owner. He generously donated his farm as well as $500,000 to start the present Cornell campus.
Many patriotic Americans lost their lives during the Revolutionary War and subsequent wars to provide our current society the freedom and liberty we enjoy today. There was cruelty and killing on both sides, and the AIISP takes a one-sided view of both the indigenous dispossession in New York as well as subsequent events.
After an intense campaign by AIISP, Day Hall adopted a land acknowledgment, which makes the point that indigenous people occupied the campus long before European-Americans ever settled the area. Nobody is satisfied by the current text. AIISP wants a more explicit condemnation of the university while others advocate that Cornell should show more appreciation for our founders. The commission can consider dropping the land acknowledgment or expanding it to acknowledge the contributions of Cornell’s founders, donors and veterans.
Conclusion
If Cornell focuses on a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to resolve these lingering questions, the community can move past the insinuation of “cover ups” and move on to more vital academic controversies on their merits.
Cornell and indigenous people share an interwoven history that can be presented without either side sugar coating it. With some thoughtful reflection and honesty, the commission can develop a new approach that is welcoming to both its indigenous and non-indigenous students.
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Cornell’s treatment of indigenous people could be a productive opportunity to provide such a forum.
