Cornell Faculty to Vote on 'No Confidence' Resolution for 5 Days

Cornell University's faculty senate will begin a five day electronic vote this week on a symbolic resolution that declares the central administration has lost the trust of the teaching staff. The measure specifically targets the school's management of sexual violence cases and could place additional pressure on leadership, though it lacks the power to mandate structural changes or remove officials.

The resolution hinges on a single sentence: the Faculty Senate has no confidence in the ability of the central administration to effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell University. Debate on this wording began earlier this month and concluded on Wednesday afternoon. The timeline for the electronic vote, which spans five days following the Wednesday meeting, was detailed in documents reviewed by reporters.

Tensions peaked during a heated session on Oct. 14, where President Michael Kotlikoff defended the administration's record. Professor Risa Lieberwitz accused the leadership of reacting to external pressure rather than engaging in systemic work. She stated that the administration appears to focus on responding to pressure instead of prioritizing these issues with consistent leadership.

Kotlikoff acknowledged the criticism, admitting that much of the information regarding the controversy came to him for the first time recently. He argued that the administration needed time to process these new details. He also defended the Title IX investigation conducted two years ago, asserting that the process followed both school policy and federal law, even if stakeholders disagreed with the final outcome.

The vote follows a lawsuit filed by a former student identified as Jane Doe, who alleged she was sexually assaulted at a school fraternity in 2024. The case has sparked national discussion regarding the treatment of sexual assault on college campuses. While no criminal charges have been filed, a New York state attorney general investigation remains active.

In the hours before the Oct. 14 meeting, Jane Doe's attorney sent a letter to the faculty senate. The letter included a second hand account of Kotlikoff's response to the allegations in a January 2025 meeting. The attorney wrote that the student felt unsupported and disbelieved, and that Kotlikoff's initial question, Why did she wait so long to report it?, diminished her confidence in the administration's fairness.

A university spokesperson disputed the characterization of that remark in a statement. The spokesperson said the second hand account in the letter was incorrect and relied on a documented first hand account of the January 2025 meeting.