Kotlikoff and Student Assembly in Free Speech Showdown

On March 18 and 19, 2026, President Kotlikoff rejected two Student Assembly (SA) resolutions as inconsistent with free expression and academic freedom. This highly visible interaction comes during the period when candidates for the SA slots are circulating petitions to run for seats on the SA during the 2026-27 term. It also occurs while the SA and other shared governance groups are trying to take principled positions that the current conduct system needs reform to protect free speech and academic freedom. Later, the SA followed up with a resolution claiming the Cornell Grounds Department was selectively washing away politically chalked messages.

Resolution 55 – War Criminals

Resolution 55, entitled “Condemning the University Administration’s Use of Programming to Platform Individuals Implicated in War Crimes,” was written by Yasmeen Masoud ‘28. It explicitly addresses the March 10, 2025, Pathways to Peace panel discussion and the inclusion of Tzipi Livni, former Israeli Foreign Minister, in the panel discussion. Tzipi Livni has been the subject of attempts by Palestinian advocates to have her arrested by British courts under a theory of “universal jurisdiction.” She has not been tried or convicted of any war crimes.

The resolution states, “presenting individuals implicated in war crimes or crimes against humanity as authorities on peace, diplomacy, or global leadership fundamentally distorts the meaning of peace and serves to normalize impunity for mass violence.”

The resolution therefore concludes, ”the Student Assembly condemns the University administration’s practice of inviting individuals implicated in war crimes or serious human rights violations to campus, including through programming branded as Pathways to Peace.”

The SA adopted the resolution by a vote of 19-2-3 on Thursday, March 12. On March 14, SA President Zora de Rahm transmitted the resolution to President Kotlikoff, and on March 19, he rejected the resolution, giving a statement for his reasons. 

“I see this resolution by the Student Assembly as a regrettable attempt to further the notion that there is virtue in silencing speech with which we disagree. Any attempt to restrict the sharing of perspectives—whether by shouting down speakers, disrupting events, or imposing political litmus tests on invitations—is anathema to the principles and purpose of our university, and has no place in our community.”

President Kotlikoff also noted, 

“Rigorous inquiry requires exploring an issue from all sides, without a predetermined conclusion. Yet this resolution, although partially phrased in generalities, objects on ideological grounds to even exposing Cornell students, in a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the perspective of a former Israeli Foreign Minister. Here I must note that this resolution includes not only logical fallacies and unsubstantiated assertions, but also clear indications of political bias.”

The problem with advocating censorship is that somebody must be trusted to make the decisions as a censor. Although the SA appears to generally distrust Day Hall, the resolution calls upon Day Hall to censor speakers who are invited onto campus. President Kotlikoff rejects serving in that role.

He also argues,

“SA Resolution 55 asks the ‘University administration’ to establish standards to determine who is permitted to speak on campus, and indicates that such standards are necessary for ‘student safety.’ In my view, both the notion of establishing criteria for acceptable speakers and the assumption that exposure to controversial speakers endangers students are deeply troubling and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of both the purpose of a university education and the role of free speech in a democracy.”

Resolution 61 – Jacobs Institute

Resolution 61, entitled “Calling for the Termination of Cornell University’s Partnership with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology While Preserving Cornell Tech”, had an even more troubled history than Resolution 55. At first, SA President Zora de Rahm refused to place it on the SA agenda because it dealt with a topic unrelated to the Ithaca campus or with undergraduates. It lists Yasmeen Masoud ‘28 as its author with sponsorship by The Progressives @ Cornell, Students for Justice in Palestine at Cornell. At the February 26 SA meeting, a majority of the body forced consideration of the draft and moved it to a final reading. It was adopted on March 12 with a vote of 17-5-0. 

The resolution seeks to end the Jacobs Institute as a joint venture between Cornell and Technion. The resolution claims, “Cornell University funds joint military and defense-related research through the Jacobs–Technion Institute, raising concerns about Cornell’s material involvement in military applications.”  

The resolution requested, “Cornell University to implement transparent ethical review processes for all international partnerships, particularly those involving military, surveillance, or dual-use technologies.”

On March 18, President Kotlikoff rejected this resolution, “which fundamentally conflicts with Cornell’s principles of academic collaboration and our core commitment to academic freedom.”  Kotlikoff wrote, “Severing our relationship with the Technion—or with any entity affiliated with governments, institutions, or enterprises with which some of our community members disagree—as a statement of political protest, would not only hinder our research, teaching, and public engagement; it would imperil our academic principles.’

“Finally, I am deeply troubled by the selective manner in which this resolution singles out the Technion, alone of Cornell’s many international partners, for censure. Cornell currently maintains 159 active agreements with institutions in 59 nations and regions; all of these institutions have some government affiliation, and many conduct research with military and security applications. Cornell itself has military research contracts, conducts research with potential military applications, and has relationships with companies whose products are used in military contexts. Cornell also has relationships with institutions in countries whose governments have been accused of human rights violations—as our own has been.”

To date, the Jacobs Institute has been involved in four subject areas, none of which are military, surveillance, or dual-use technologies.

Resolution 87 – Chalking on Sidewalks

Resolution 87 addressed the Cornell Grounds Staff washing off political messages that were chalked on sidewalks during “Cornell Days” for prospective students on April 10-12, 2026. The chalked messages were “critical of University administration and its suppression of free speech. “ The resolution states, “the Student Assembly condemns the University’s abuse of the Expressive Activity Policy to further its own ends and maintain its appearance.” The SA adopted the resolution on April 21, and President Kotlikoff has not responded.

Analysis

The Cornell Progressives and Students for Justice in Palestine have recently been very effective in shaping the free speech debate by lobbying the SA to adopt its Resolution 10 and to organize two undergraduate referenda last December, dealing with the Student Code and Procedures.  This is reflected by the outcome of the vote, which drew over 3,000 voters voting 93% and 91% in favor of two propositions on whether the system should be separate from the central administration and whether Cornell should return from a student-only code to one that applied equally to students, faculty, and staff.

The student activists focused on these two resolutions before President Trump launched the controversial attack on Iran. Instead of quickly pivoting on that issue, the advocates doubled down and pressed the SA to adopt it a week ago.  As no surprise to anyone, President Kotlikoff quickly rejected both resolutions, painting the resolutions’ backers as censorious and limiting academic freedom.  At a time when critics of the Iran crisis claim that the federal government is trying to stifle public debate regarding Iran, these two resolutions removed the moral high ground on the free speech / academic freedom argument.

At the very time that the SA is trying to stimulate student interest in running in the SA elections or voting in them, the fight over Resolutions 55 and 61 makes it hard to view the SA as an effective voice for student concerns.