Kotlikoff Addresses Faculty Senate
On March 11, 2026, President Kotlikoff and Provost Bala addressed the Faculty Senate and answered a wide-ranging group of questions.
Kotlikoff addressed the Draft Revisions to the Student Code and Procedures, released two days earlier. Kotlikoff highlighted the changes to the temporary suspensions pending hearing and how appeals of such suspensions are handled. The report “has been sent directly to the Senate and all of the shared governance bodies, so we are looking to that thoughtful feedback on these proposed revisions.”
RELATED: Faculty Senate Adopts Resolution on Student Conduct System
Last year, a highly controversial action led to the early retirement of tenured professor Eric Cheyfitz amid a bias complaint against him. His case was handled under Cornell Policy 6.4. Kotlikoff said, “I am very pleased to see that the Senate is establishing a task force on Policy 6.4 procedures. My sense is that we don’t need to change Policy 6.4 on bias and harassment, which is robust, but we need to make our procedures consistent with our Title VI legal responsibilities. We need to set standards consistent across that process, and we need to streamline procedures as much as possible.”
Provost Bala then commented on Resilient Cornell, a campus-wide effort to examine and reduce costs in response to budgetary pressures. They are looking at procurement policies. They have established a “Position Control Committee” to look at all of the job openings before they are filled. Provost Bala announced that a new voluntary retirement program will be rolled out in the next couple of weeks. Functional groups have been looking at the scope of Alumni Affairs and Development, IT, Communications, and other units “to think about how they should restructure their work.”
Provost Bala also reported that the Committee on the Future of the American University (FAU) has completed its listening phase and is beginning to formulate its recommendations. They will be doing townhalls before the end of the semester and will release their report before the end of the summer.
The President and Provost then took questions from the audience for 15 minutes.
One faculty member asked if this was to reduce administrator headcount or faculty headcount. Bala responded that Resilient Cornell is only a non-academic activity and that the individual college deans are responsible for controlling their own academic budgets. President Kotlikoff added that Resilient Cornell will give the “flexibility to make investments in our core missions, which are academic missions.”
A physics professor asked about research funding because federal agencies are slow to issue new grants. Existing faculty are squeezed by the slow grant-making process. Faculty need Cornell to provide bridge funding until a new flow of government research grants emerges. The FAU Committee is looking at resilience in the research function. Cornell has backed off on admitting graduate students. Cornell is engaged in Washington on this problem.
An Israeli professor wanted to put on the record that Cornell is still failing its Israeli students and faculty, who do not feel safe on campus. President Kotlikoff understands the concern, but feels that demonstrations this year have followed the time, place, and manner standards.
An RTE faculty member in the Bowers School claims that the FAU membership is mostly tenured faculty. Provost Bala replied that there will be a “Shaping Our Future” Committee to follow up on the FAU with a more diverse membership.
An animal science professor believes that private industry could be a promising source of research funding, but most corporate sponsors are put off by Cornell’s high indirect cost recovery factor. President Kotlikoff believes there must be a consistent minimum indirect cost recovery rate.
An information science professor asked whether the Federal Government has upheld its side of the November Settlement with Cornell? Has there been any attempt by the Federal Government to obtain lists of Jewish students or faculty? President Kotlikoff believes that the settlement has been honored, and Cornell’s research funding has been released. However, there are research funding problems that affect all universities. For example, NIH is shifting to a two-tier grant process, with both scientific merit and a political analysis based upon which state is hosting the research. Congress’s appropriation bills include text that prevents the government from arbitrarily reducing the indirect cost recovery. We had won in court, and the government has removed all of its pending appeals. Cornell has not been asked for any lists.
Kyle Kimball, the new Vice President for University Relations, addressed the Faculty Senate for his first time. His office works with faculty to “amplify” the storytelling about faculty research. He also helps with “crisis communications” when a faculty member is targeted.
A professor of information science asked what Kimball’s favorite accomplishment was in his first six months in office. This is the first job where he came in without some sort of mentor or sponsor.
A computer science professor asked how Kimball would approach his role to ensure his comments would diffuse problems rather than inflame them. Kimball replied, “Transparency sends a message that you are doing the best that you can to tell the truth and what you know.”
A professor noted that young people no longer get their information from podcasts or newspapers, but rather from large language models or chatbots. She asked Kimball how he would change the output of his office accordingly. Kimball replied that the communications team is “trying to be more disciplined about engagement metrics.”
Two New Faculty Senate Resolutions
The Faculty Senate considered a resolution calling on Day Hall to prepare an annual transparency report on academic freedom. This record would catalog the number of incidents each year and how they fared in the conduct process. The resolution will be voted upon by an electronic poll, with the results announced next month.
A second resolution called for a task force to look at Policy 6.4 and related sections of the faculty handbook. There is an urgent need to harmonize the standard of evidence. Sometimes a “preponderance of the evidence” standard is used in Policy 6.4, but other documents specify a “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
Academic Integrity Code
The Academic Integrity Working Group reported on “Accepting Responsibility” as an approach that is less punitive than the current academic code. The Working Group has created a pilot program. That program has had only two cases of recidivism. The pilot provides a one-time opportunity to participate in a workshop instead of a full evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged academic integrity violation. A Faculty Senate resolution incorporating the pilot into the permanent academic integrity code and procedures is expected in April.
Student Code and Procedures Review
Last year, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution on interim suspensions pending a hearing. The proposal issued by Dean Marla Love on March 9 incorporated many of the same features that the Faculty Senate had criticized. As a result, Prof. Richard Benzel, Government, announced that he was working with a group of Faculty Senators to produce a resolution expressing the Faculty Senate’s concern for consideration at the April meeting. If adopted, it would be a timely input before the end of the current public comment period on the proposal.
