When just over half of Cornell University's Faculty Senate votes no confidence in administration, that is not a ringing endorsement that should be dismissed with reassurances. Yet that is precisely what the Board of Trustees Chair Anne Meinig Smalling has done in response to Friday's resolution, which passed with 55.6 percent approval among the 135 faculty senators. The board's statement defending President Michael Kotlikoff and pledging confidence in his leadership reveals a troubling disconnect: the trustees are not listening to the faculty they employ.
The allegations are serious and the faculty concerns are substantive. A former student's allegation of violent rape prompted weeks of faculty debate that culminated in this no-confidence vote. The complaint was not about whether assault occurred on campus—it was about how the university responded. According to Risa Lieberwitz, a faculty co-sponsor of the resolution, the Cornell central administration has taken 'a reactive and piecemeal approach' rather than a systemic one. Faculty argue that President Kotlikoff was too slow to respond to the allegation and that the university must do better in handling sexual assault complaints. These are not abstract grievances; they speak to the safety and support of students.
The board's response invokes Kotlikoff's past successes—restoring federal funding, preserving free speech, navigating the pandemic—as though excellence in one domain excuses sluggish performance in another. It does not. Meinig Smalling writes that the administration 'has a plan' focused on strengthening student safety and improving support for survivors, and she lists steps already taken: adding staff to the Cornell Office of Civil Rights, expanding prevention education, and hiring more victim advocates. These are moves in the right direction. But if these measures truly represent the administration's approach, why did it take a faculty uprising to prompt them?
A 55.6 percent vote signals that faculty are split and concerned. Nearly 37 percent voted against the resolution, and 7.4 percent abstained—meaning less than three-fifths of the senate believes current leadership warrants a no-confidence vote. This is a narrow margin that reflects real disagreement within the faculty ranks. Yet it is precisely the narrowness that should alarm trustees most. When faculty confidence in administration fractures, even modestly, it indicates deeper problems that have not been adequately addressed.
Cornell's trustees must recognize that defending the status quo is not leadership. They should commission an independent review of how the university handles sexual assault complaints and survivor support. They should set clear timelines and measurable outcomes for the systemic changes the administration claims to be pursuing. And they should listen to faculty—not dismiss them as malcontents—because faculty work directly with students and are often the first to notice when institutional priorities are misaligned with stated values. Kotlikoff may be the right leader to fix this problem, but only if the board acknowledges that one exists.