Cornell needs you

It's not just about "the parking lot."

In early May, Cornell made headlines for an incident involving Kotlikoff and Students for a Democratic Cornell (the group that had organized the December referendum). The media mostly covered the parking lot portion, with many people drawing conclusions about whether Kotlikoff's behavior was justified. There is a lot more to the story, and it has alarmed us.

Prior to the incident, the administration's behavior towards the students was already problematic. Cornell's administration was using what appears to be intimidation tactics to suppress dissent from the students: (i.e., grounds crews followed them to power-wash away their chalked sidewalk messages; another time, campus police drive through the Arts Quad 7 times during SdC's 1hr, peaceful event with 3 senior-citizen alumni speakers). (Kotlikoff had earlier lost credibility with us after his spokespeople gave us false/misleading information on prior occasions.)

Key points about the incident itself have been misconstrued. Prior to arriving at the parking lot, the students had not been protesting; they'd been walking alongside Kotikoff, questioning him persistently about the topics in the referendum. As noted above, this is an important concern that has received little attention.

The President's and Board's responses showed a disturbing lack of accountability and concern: The morning after the incident, Kotlikoff took advantage of his position of public trust by using university-wide channels to get ahead of the story, using false and misleading information to discredit the students. As the Sun's opinion section illustrates, he was widely condemned--by the editors, multiple faculty members, the graduate student union, etc. (though we note that a group of people took his statement at face value & wrote in support.)

A few days later, the Board announced it would conduct an investigation to settle the matter, and it ultimately announced that Kotikoff was in the clear. For many reasons, this investigation was criticized as a "sham".

This represents a failure of leadership at the very top of Cornell.

Don't just take our word for it. In the words of Cornell Law Professor James Grimmelman:

"I care about this case because I care deeply about the university that Michael Kotlikoff and the Board of Trustees lead. I care enough to want Cornell to do the right thing, both when other people are behaving well and when they aren’t. I no longer have confidence in the Special Committee’s members, which means I no longer have confidence in the Chair and the three Vice-Chairs of Cornell’s Board of Trustees. They took on a discrete task of great importance to the university, but they utterly failed to understand the assignment. These are not people who have demonstrated the judgment we require from our leaders. The Board of Trustees should dismiss them and replace them with officers who can actually do their jobs."

Cornell needs transparent & ethical leadership--including an independent investigation

The "fine print" in the November 2025 settlement contains provisions that put Cornellians at risk by creating new avenues for federal access to student and applicant data.

• Cornell Courage’s Academic Freedom Committee--whose members include alumni with backgrounds in the academic and legal fields --produced a report, “Cornell Students at Risk: How the university’s settlement with the Trump administration jeopardizes student data and security,”

At the risk aren't just for students: faculty and staff are also affected. And as the report describes, even high schoolers applying to Cornell are subject to having their application information shared with the federal government. How can we expect the most talented high school seniors to want to apply to Cornell under these circumstances?

Cornellians' privacy is now at risk due to data sharing provisions

Hallmark programs have been whittled down or renamed, and the stance of Cornell leadership is not particularly friendly to diversity.

• Cornell agreed, in its Nov. 2025 settlement, to comply with the DOJ's "Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination."  This document basically concludes that all DEI programs and policies are illegal; however, this is a dubious statement unsupported by law or caselaw; and the "Guidance" has no legal status because it is neither an Act of Congress nor a properly issued regulation.  Although Kotlikoff has downplayed the extent to which it will comply, saying it will use the Guidance "as a training document," this non-legal document really has no place at Cornell at all. But it is a Trojan horse that will encourage the federal Government to bring new baseless charges against Cornell. It also suggests that Cornell's administration have an interest in presenting the university as an institution that has eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.

• Indeed, last August, during negotiations with the Trump administration, Cornell renamed its Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives to Office of Academic Discovery and Impact.

• At Ujaama, founded in 1972 to serve Black students, black students are now in the minority; Cornell has changed it to a dorm ("like all Cornell residential communities") serving students of any/all backgrounds. Students that apply to live there are not accepted, while other students are housed there who did not choose Ujaama. The Latino Living Center is facing similar issues. As a result, Cornell is hollowing out its commitment to support the Black and Latino communities,

Diversity, long one of Cornell's fundamental principles, is being undermined