Faculty Senate Questions President and Provost on Federal Settlement and Code

On January 21, the Faculty Senate held a special meeting to discuss the Settlement between Cornell and the Federal Government. A video has been posted. The Faculty Senate is an elected representative body that acts in place of the full University Faculty on many matters. This meeting also addressed a Faculty Senate resolution critical of an unelected committee that is reviewing the Student Code of Conduct.

Campus Security After Brown Shooting

Kotlikoff’s prepared remarks addressed security, the federal settlement, and conduct revisions. Kotlikoff said, “The terrible events of the last month at Brown have underscored how important it is to have a campus that is prepared for emergencies of every kind.” Cornell is working on campus-wide emergency plans. Cornell is also reviewing infrastructure readiness. All of the Ivy League schools are learning from Brown and sharing best practices.

Cornell’s leadership conducts tabletop exercises to plan for crisis events that they hope will never happen. In terms of infrastructure, Cornell “values an open and public campus. *** We need to find a way to balance openness with preparedness.” The Brown experience has shown the need to rapidly secure the campus and to access video footage. Cornell will upgrade locks and add new cameras.

Federal Government Settlement

Kotlikoff said that negotiations with the federal government went on for most of 2025. Kotlikoff is not thrilled by the settlement. Kotlikoff noted that the settlement affirmed academic freedom and did not place any artificial limits on international students. The settlement does not limit free expression, and it does not impose any data requirements other than those already required by law. The settlement does not require any changes to admissions or hiring practices. The settlement does not impose a monitor to report back to the Dept. of Justice. The July 29, 2025, DOJ Memo on affirmative action will be provided as a part of faculty training materials, but Cornell is not bound to follow the memo.

RELATED: Cornell Reaches Settlement With Trump Administration to Restore Federal Research Funding

Cornell agreed to provide $10 million for each of three years to the U.S. Treasury and $10 million for each of three years to Cornell’s agriculture research. The Settlement provides Cornell with the legal basis to sue if there is a future dispute.

As of January 20, DOD, DOE, NIH, and NSF appropriation bills have passed the congress, and all four appropriation bills have language that restricts the ability of the government to arbitrarily cap indirect costs. Long term, the Office of Management and Budget has proposed an onerous method for reimbursing indirect costs, but Cornell is protected at least while the current bills are in effect through September 30.

Code of Conduct

Kotlikoff feels that there is “a process in place” to review the Student Code. The Standing Committee’s report will be public, and the Faculty Senate will have a chance to opine upon the recommendations of that report. Kotlikoff stated, “It is very important for the university to have an efficient and accountable process to protect the community, including from unlawful discrimination and bias. We need a process that is rapid and efficient and provides us legal protection from civil and federal lawsuits.” Kotlikoff notes that certain individuals involved in the process have been identified and attacked on social media. Kotlikoff says, “This is really inexcusable.”

Audience Questions and Answers

A Computer Science professor asked about whether the Settlement really benefited Cornell or if the Settlement contained other downsides. Further, if all of the federal research money were released by the Settlement, would we really need a decade of austerity?

Kotlikoff was pleased with the Settlement text, which was better than those of other universities. Kotlikoff claims that Cornell faces financial stress other than the withholding of federal research funds. Cornell has grown at a rate that is not sustainable. “We have seen costs escalate across the university in a way that we can’t cover with tuition, and we have seen legal fees that are just enormous, both here and at Weill Cornell Medicine. All of this has put us in a situation where we are at a razor’s edge with our budget.”

Nathan Matias, Communications, asked about the data columns that will be shared with the federal government to the Faculty Senate.

A professor asked how agricultural research became a part of the negotiation and whether the Federal government has done all that was required under the Settlement. Cornell proposed a donation to support agricultural research in the Settlement. Kotlikoff believes that all funds have been released to date.

Chris Schaffer, Biomedical Engineering, asked about a resolution the Faculty Senate passed in December calling for the disbanding of the Standing Code and Procedures Review Committee and calling for a new committee. He asked Kotlikoff’s thoughts on why the approach taken with the expressive activity committee cannot be taken. President Kotlikoff responded that the Review Committee does have representation from the shared governance bodies. Kotlikoff claims that the Review Committee is specified in the Student Code itself. “It is not de novo reviewing the whole code,” Schaffer asked for the timeline when something would be made public, with an opportunity to provide constructive criticism. Kotlikoff expects something by the end of the semester and said, ”I think you will see that it is incremental. It is not revolutionary.”

Schaffer pointed out that the Faculty Senate complained about the “capricious” over-use of the interim suspension policy. He asked Kotlikoff to commit to a more restrained use of interim suspension until the Review Committee completed its work. Kotlikoff refused to commit to that.

Schaffer responded by noting that the individuals placed under interim suspension had not been found to have violated anything.

Bryan L. Sykes, Brooks Public Policy, asked about the certification process in the Settlement. Kotlikoff replied that each Settlement provision has a “workstream” associated with it, and each will be documented so that Kotlikoff can certify compliance. Kotlikoff would be criminally liable for any false certification.

Todd Schmit, Applied Economics, asked what process would be used to make the agricultural research awards. There will be an external advisory board and a faculty committee. Cornell will run two RFPs per year. Anyone can apply for an internal grant.

Richard Bensel, Government, agreed with Schaffer’s comments. Kotlikoff has rejected the resolutions from the SA, GPSA, EA, and Faculty Senate. If the shared governance bodies reject the draft from the Review Committee, could we then proceed with a more democratic review? Kotlikoff hopes that the Faculty Senate will carefully consider the recommendations of the Review Committee and make more recommendations. “We can’t do is put this university in a situation where individuals’ rights are infringed upon, and the university can’t take the appropriate action to protect their rights,” said Kotlikoff.

Vala Fatemi, Applied and Engineering Physics, asked whether Cornell faces reductions in indirect cost recovery in the future. Kotlikoff responded that the fact that these appropriation bills have passed with protective language is an indication of the support that research institutions have gained in Congress.

Tom Fox, Molecular Biology and Genetics, asked how paying this $30 million “ransom” to the federal government is affecting Cornell’s fundraising? Kotlikoff reported that we are on track to have the best fundraising year in the history of Cornell.

Sandra Babcock, Law, asked about a letter from five UN rapporteurs asking about the suspension of Cornell graduate students. Does Cornell intend to respond to this request from the UN mandate holders? Kotlikoff plans to respond. “The university took no action against those two individuals that in any way suppressed their ability to articulate their support for individuals in Gaza. *** What we did was take action against individuals who had violated the rights of others.” Babcock responded that “the lack of student protests [last semester] is in part a reflection of the intimidation, harassment, that is prevalent, particularly among the international student community.”

Mats Rooth, Linguistics, is a member of the University Assembly (UA) Campus Codes Committee (CCC). Why not tell us what the issues with the current Student Code are before the Review Committee starts its deliberations on possible solutions? Why do we only get input on the last step? Kotlikoff was apparently unaware of the ongoing existence of the UA committee. Dean Eve DeRosa stepped in to clarify the situation. She claimed that the charge of the committee is “vestigial”. Richard Bensel was chair of the CCC, and he noted they revised the charge after the Student Code was enacted.

Chelsea Specht, SIPS, asked whether the $30 million under the Settlement could be used for social justice and climate change research. Is the relationship between higher education and the federal government being rewritten to be less advantageous to higher education, and can we reach out to corporations? Kotlikoff says the committee will reach out to others.

Risa L. Lieberwitz, ILR, the $30 million to agriculture has nothing mentioned about farm worker rights. Kotlikoff agrees. That was not the focus of the negotiations.

Lawrence B. Glickman, History, noted that the Trump Administration is pursuing individual universities because it sees them as an enemy. Glickman asked about the faculty’s responsibility to defend civil society in terms of this Settlement. Kotlikoff noted that Cornell was one of two research universities that signed on to all three court complaints challenging the 15% indirect cost caps. We have a pending EEOC complaint that was excluded from the Settlement. 

Mats Rooth asked about the increased video surveillance. Will access be logged? Kotlikoff believes that Cornell owes the community how the video will be overseen and used.

Bill Katt, Molecular Medicine, asks if the measures in place are sufficient to protect Jewish students? Kotlikoff responded that people subject to unlawful bias need to be protected. “The job of the President is not to protect you from hearing something that offends you.”