top of page

CASE STUDY: Cornell “Whistleblowers” Reveal How DEI Statements Are Used as a Litmus Test to Eliminate Qualified Faculty in Hiring Process

Writer's picture: Cornell Free Speech AllianceCornell Free Speech Alliance

Internal Cornell Records Provided to CFSA Show How the University Discriminates Based on Personal Beliefs & Identity Profiles Rather Than Merit


Faculty and staff within the Cornell Community have reported to CFSA details of DEI-driven faculty hiring abuses practised by Cornell University. CFSA legal advisors indicate that these practices are unlawful and violate both the US and NY State Anti-Discrimination and Employment Laws. Based on internal Cornell documents provided to CFSA, the below report presents ‘smoking gun’ evidence which exposes how DEI Statements are used to discriminate against faculty candidates in order to maintain ideological conformity and DEI dogma on campus. By uncovering these Cornell practices, CFSA hopes to move Cornell away from such abusive and prejudicial hiring policies. The full report exposing these Cornell policies is presented below.


Background On The Problem


Because of its special importance, this is a longer and more detailed Cornell Campus Report than usual which addresses a pressing issue now confronting Cornell – namely, will the university terminate its various DEI policies which are both discriminatory and unlawful? To understand the DEI problem, “the devil is in the details” – so this report looks at the details, which tell a most alarming story. CFSA urges every Cornellian to carefully read and consider the contents of the below “whistleblower” Case Study report provided by faculty and staff within the Cornell Community.


Martha Pollack made the advancement of aggressive DEI policies the hallmark of her Cornell Presidency. Ms. Pollack stated that, under her administration,DEI dogma would always have equal standing with Free Expression, Open Inquiry, and Academic Freedom on campus. After the dismantling of DEI at MIT and many other leading schools (seeRef A,Ref B,Ref C,andRef D), Cornell remains a follower rather than a leader in instituting DEI reforms. Sadly, the Cornell Community is now learning that Pollack’s DEI policies not only discriminate against prospective faculty, staff, and students but also have created a toxic and hateful environment which has laid the foundation for the ongoing outburst of virulent antisemitism on campus.


This Cornell Campus Report will begin to expose the methods the Cornell Administration has used in recent years to discriminate against faculty and staff who failed to adequately conform to Cornell’s DEI ideology. The US Congress and the US Department of Education are now investigating Cornell to assess associated violations of US law. With the planned termination of the Pollack Presidency, there exists an opportunity to reverse the many harmful DEI practices now plaguing the university – including those described herein. CFSA urges that such major reforms now be launched by Cornell’s newly reconstructed leadership team.


CFSA maintains a Cornell Campus Report Email HOTLINEwhich members of the Cornell Community utilize to report university practices and policies which impede Open Inquiry, Academic Freedom, Viewpoint Diversity and Free Expression on campus. Such HOTLINE communications provide CFSA with a steady stream of campus reports which illuminate the discriminatory actions now practised at Cornell that impose ideological dogma and suppress free thought in all aspects of campus life. These Cornell HOTLINE communications have produced the information presented in this report.


Cornell Uses DEI Statements In Faculty Hiring To Enforce Viewpoint Monoculture


In its Cornell Campus Freedom Initiative, the highly respected American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) hasassessed Cornell’s DEI Statement policyas follows :


“Cornell is working to ensure that its students won’t hear a variety of viewpoints by mandating that faculty applicants pass an ideological litmus test to get a job…(Cornell) is becoming a place where everyone is pressured to subscribe to the same ideas.” - American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)

After CFSA / ACTA’s urging, certain website language alterations to Cornell’s DEI Statement requirements have been secretly made by the university over the past 18 months without any public announcement on a policy change (see last Cornell Campus Report). With these alterations and the recent termination of the Martha Pollack Presidency, it appears that Cornell is finally beginning to respond to increasing campus and public calls for major Cornell policy reforms (including the recent reinstatement of the SAT testin admissions as urged by CFSA) in order to reverse the damaging DEI-driven politicization, discrimination, and educational degradation of the university over the past decade.


Despite these website wording changes, Cornell continues to practice blatant discrimination in the hiring of faculty. It has long been evidenced that Cornell has a penchant for hiring faculty and staff (especially in the humanities and social sciences) who hold extreme and one-sided political views as detailed in anApril 2024 issue of The Cornell Thinker and related press reports (see Ref E and Ref F).


However, recent confidential disclosures provided to CFSA make clear how the Cornell Administration uses DEI Statements to reject candidates for STEM faculty positions who hold personal views that do not adequately conform to the “DEI GroupThink” dogma now dominating campus life. Below, internal Cornell documents provided by members of the on-campus Cornell Community are reviewed which show how viewpoint “litmus tests” are now practised by the university in faculty hiring in STEM fields.


Cornell Breaks Its Own Rules In Faculty Hiring


On its website, Cornell publishes guidelines on“Best Practices In Faculty Recruitment”. These guidelines are heavily embedded with DEI-driven mandates which direct all academic department Search Committees to give special advantages and consideration to faculty applicants having certain viewpoints and belonging to particular demographic groups. A detailed analysis of Cornell’s Best Practices guidelines shows that the great majority of the text included in these guidelines (i.e. 72% -- or 2025 out of 2802 total words) is devoted exclusively to promoting such “diversity hires” in filling new faculty positions. This clearly indicates that instituting intense DEI-driven (rather than merit-based) hiring bias is the primary purpose of these guidelines. Yet, these Best Practices suggest an attempt at fairness by stating the following :


“Ensure each relevant candidate’s work is thoroughly reviewed.”


“Use consistent standards and expectations for all.”


Unfortunately, the Case Study presented below makes clear that Cornell is NOT pursuing these objectives and that DEI-dominated processes are eliminating prospective faculty hires without a thorough review of candidates’ work and without using consistent standards for all. Thus, DEI is NOT “levelling the playing field” to fully include underrepresented groups – but, instead, is “heavily tilting” the playing field in favour of faculty candidates possessing preferred demographic characteristics and viewpoints.


The Politicization Of The Cornell Faculty


Cornell employs hiring practices which promote certain preferred socio-political viewpoints in Cornell humanities and social science departments where anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-White, antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-Colonial viewpoints have become popularized. This one-sided, politically-based hiring in “non-science” subject areas has long existed at Cornell as evidenced by today’s faculty(seeRef EandRef F).


Based on current faculty composition in the humanities and “soft subjects”, observers now see Cornell and other Ivy universities as bastions of anti-American teaching and activism which act asproxies for foreign governments and intereststhat are hostile to the US and its historical foundations. Recent pro-Hamas demonstrations at Cornell (and the university’s tolerance of the same) reinforce this anti-US perception. Cornell President Martha Pollack has unwisely made this politically motivated “official statement”on behalf of the university :


“We are ashamed of the injustices that are perpetrated in our country every day…. (The US) is, in many ways, still so badly broken.” - Martha Pollack, President of Cornell University

However, Cornell has become not just anti-American but anti-Cornell itself. DEI administrators declared this on Cornell’s website:


(Cornell) was founded on and perpetuates various injustices. These include settler colonialism, indigenous dispossession, slavery, racism, classism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, antisemitism, and ableism. (Cornell.edu)

It is clear that DEI ideology andpolicies on campuswhich originated in the humanities and have been promoted by the current Cornell Administration createfertile ground for such anti-Americanismand anti-Cornellism.Of course, “people are policy” in any organization and DEI dogma now dictates the people who are hired and admitted at Cornell today.


Corruption Of The Pure Sciences


Due to the non-political nature of the study of pure science, many have felt that the STEM fields (i.e. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) would escape the oppressive monoculture that has come to dominate other academic disciplines at Cornell. However, under Pollack policies, DEI mandates now require all prospective Cornell faculty members to pledge special treatment and advantages to faculty and students belonging to certain favoured identity groups with no requirement to provide such educational benefits to other faculty and students. These “unequal treatment” pledges are memorialized via formal“Cornell Statements of Contribution to DEI”(i.e. DEI Statements) made by faculty.


As described in the Case Study below, every STEM faculty applicant must submit such a DEI Statement to initiate the hiring process. These DEI Statements (called “loyalty oaths” by ACTA) are wholly unrelated to subject area expertise, research accomplishments, instructional achievement,or scholastic merit in STEM fields. Nevertheless, Cornell treats these statements as the “first priority” for screening out otherwise qualified STEM applicants.


By placing such socio-political loyalty pledges before academic excellence in assessing applicant qualifications, the faculty hiring process has become badly distorted and educational quality has been seriously degraded at Cornell. Recognizing this DEI disaster, MIT (the preeminent STEM-focused university in the US) has concluded that“DEI Statements don’t work”and has recently dropped the use of such political loyalty oaths in faculty hiring. MIT President Sall Kornbluh says this :


“Compelled (DEI) statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don’t work.” - Sally Kornbluth, President of MIT

Former Harvard President Larry Summers, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under US President Bill Clinton, adds this :


“I was delighted to see my Alma mater MIT eliminate required diversity statements… Requiring statements of fealty from faculty job candidates is an affront to almost every academic freedom value. Harvard’s leadership knows that diversity statements are morally bankrupt. Whether they follow MIT’s lead is a test of courage for them.” - Larry Summers, Former President of Harvard University

Unfortunately, Cornell President Martha Pollack has stated that DEI Statements present no significant conflict with Academic Freedom and Free Expression and has publicly stated thatCornell will defend DEI as steadfastly as it defends Free Expression.Thus, as the below Cornell Case Study shows,the selection of new STEM faculty at Cornell continues to be driven by DEI mandates. In addition to the educational dysfunction created by such DEI policies, legal experts argue that the discriminatory methods now employed in faculty hiring for both STEM and all academic disciplines at Cornell violate both US Anti-Discrimination Laws and New York State Employment Law. The below Case Study illustrates this discrimination in action.




A CORNELL CASE STUDY : CORNELL DISCRIMINATION IN “PURE SCIENCE” FACULTY HIRING


Background On Faculty Hiring & DEI Statements At Cornell


Cornell University is an elite Ivy League university. The university enjoys a particularly strong reputation in STEM. Therefore, tenure-track faculty positions at Cornell are highly sought after, extremely competitive, and typically attract a very large number of applicants. In Cornell’s STEM departments, over 1,000 candidates may apply for a single-tenured faculty opening. In hiring such faculty in the past, Cornell pure science departments conducted an arduous (and often times global) selection process aimed at identifying the most highly qualified candidates within a particular field of science. This is no longer the case.


In the past, superior academic accomplishment, exemplary research, outstanding scholastic innovation, instructional capabilities, and a distinguished professional publication and service record constituted the key criteria targeted in making a tenured faculty hire at Cornell. However, beginning in 2020, the administration of Pres. Martha Pollack began requiring special “DEI Statements” to be submitted byevery candidatefor open-tenured faculty positions in all academic departments throughout the university. These DEI Statements mandated that EVERY tenure track faculty candidate at Cornell share his / her personal views and planned methods for embedding DEI ideology and teaching in all classroom and research activities. DEI criteria (rather than academic excellence) became the priority consideration for filling all new faculty positions at Cornell.


This DEI Statement requirement constituted a major departure for Cornell from its historical hiring practice by replacing academic merit-based hiring with methodologies mandating that certain personal and socio-political viewpoints be subscribed to by every faculty member hired – along with the requirement that such viewpoints be embedded in curricula and instructional practices in all pure science disciplines. Various non-science Cornell subject areas such as Africana Studies, Sociology, and Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies, have always ensured that new faculty hires have certain specified socio-political viewpoints. But with its DEI Statement requirement, Cornell now mandates that all candidates for hire must hold pre-determined personal views, beliefs, and teaching philosophies which conform to the university’s prevailing DEI ideology.


Through this means the Cornell Administration has forced scores of academic disciplines (including Mathematics, Language, History, Music, Medicine, Economics, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Business, Law, Agriculture, Architecture, etc) to have no relationship with new and untested DEI social and political theories to put DEI Statements and DEI instruction front-and-centre in all faculty hiring decisions. With this new mandate, DEI Statements have become a viewpoint “litmus test” that each faculty candidate in every academic discipline must pass in order to be hired by Cornell.


Cornell’s Method For Discriminating Against Faculty Candidates


As previouslyreported by CFSA,Cornell’s website language has migrated on its use of DEI Statements from being “required” to being “asked for” to beinvitedto being “embedded in other applicant submittals”. However, subsequent to making such website language changes, Cornell still employs DEI Statements as an absolute “litmus test” to reject faculty candidates whose personal views on social/political topics which are unrelated to their field of expertise do not conform to Cornell’s DEI dogma.



Persons engaged in research and instruction in a certain STEM department at Cornell have provided CFSA the internal Cornell documents cited herein which clearly outline the discriminatory DEI methods used in faculty hiring today. The “whistleblowers” who have provided these reports to CFSA have requested strict confidentiality due to fear that, if their identities or departments were identified, their employment would be terminated by Cornell as punishment for exposing unlawful hiring processes now practised by the university. Therefore, while the specifics described below are detailed, accurate, and verified by internal Cornell documents, the identities of the relevant persons and departments are not given.


The Cornell documents provided to CFSA specify the following method being used by the search committee (“Search Committee”) of a STEM department at Cornell:


STEP 1: The open faculty position was widely advertised and exposed by the Search Committee to the applicable academic community in a normal outreach and promotional process.


STEP 2: Through this process a sizable and demographically diverse applicant pool was identified – all of whom had completed the full paperwork and submittal package (including DEI Statements from every applicant) necessary for Cornell’s consideration of their candidacy. As part of the process, the head of the Search Committee reported that the applicant pool was highly “diverse”.


STEP 3: Prior to commencing a review of the candidate submittal packages, the Search Committee established a “rubric” aimed at performing a comparative qualifications assessment comprised of 5 elements: 1) DEI Statement; 2) Research Strength; 3) Instructional Capabilities; 4) Professional / Volunteer Involvement; and 5) Student Advisory Potential. In the documents received by CFSA, DEI is listed as the “first element” within the 5-element rubric. The implication of this “rubric” is that each candidate should be assessed through the integrated lens of all 5 of the above elements to determine the comparative strength of the candidates. However, instead of employing a 5-element rubric, DEI criteria became the sole “first priority” in candidate review.


STEP 4: The 5-element rubric was set aside and a special DEI “litmus test” review was conducted on each candidate. Several designated subgroups of the Search Committee were established which had this singular purpose: To reviewonlythe DEI Statement of each candidate as the first credential to be assessed.


STEP 5: Based on the above DEI “litmus test” alone, 13% of the candidates were eliminated from further consideration because of weak or unacceptable DEI Statements. CFSA believes that eliminating candidates on this basis violates New York State Employment Law.


STEP 6: The same DEI-focused Search Committee subgroups then separated out the most experienced candidates who possessed the longest tenure in the subject scientific field. These candidates were reviewed based on their “demographic profile”. Referring to the goal of “equity” (i.e. equitable outcomes in hiring), these more experienced (and likely older and less BIPOC) candidates were eliminated from further consideration for being too qualified. It is reported to CFSA that this process is used to eliminate candidates from “less favoured” identity groups while advancing applicants from “more favoured” identity groups. Through this screening process, an additional 8% of the applicant pool was rejected. CFSA believes that the elimination of these candidates for such “equity” reasons likely violated US and New York State Anti-Discrimination and Employment Law.


STEP 7: Through the DEI screening of Steps 4, 5 and 6 above, roughly 21% of the candidates were rejected based on the personal views and values noted in their DEI Statement or an unfavourable view of the demographic profile of the “most experienced” candidates. At this stage, the only element of the 5-element “rubric” that had been applied to screen out 21% of the candidates was DEI criteria. There had been no consideration of the other four rubric elements of Research, Instructional Capabilities, Professional Involvement, or Student Advisory.


REMAINING PROCESS: The internal Cornell documents provided to CFSA do not describe the final process used to evaluate the 79% of applicants who survived the initial two-step DEI-based screening nor the demographic / identity profile of the candidate who was eventually hired. However, based on the 5-element evaluation rubric which incorporated continuing DEI screening as the “first element” of the rubric, it seems likely that unlawful DEI-based hiring preferences continued to be applied throughout the entire hiring process to eliminate candidates who had less favourable DEI Statements and/or demographic characteristics.


Cornell’s Falsehoods Regarding Use of DEI Statements


Cornell’s use of DEI-based discrimination in the above Case Study occurredAFTERthe university’s website had already declared that DEI Statements were no longer required for submittal by any faculty applicant. As evidenced by the facts disclosed by internal university documents, the “first” and “second” hiring screens utilized to evaluate the applicant pool were based on DEI Statements submitted byevery singlecandidate. These two initial DEI screens were used to identify, separate, and eliminate each of the 21% of candidates who were first rejected.


Therefore, it is clear that Cornell’s claim that DEI Statements are no longer required in faculty hiring is categorically FALSE. In addition, Cornell’s claim that a multi-faceted “rubric” is used to assess each candidate is FALSE – since the Cornell documents indicate that a two-step DEI “litmus test” was employed in the initial screens. Likewise, the university’s claimed intent to fully review every applicant’s academic qualifications before assessing each candidate is FALSE – since, for those applicants rejected in the initial two screens, Cornell did not conduct a full review of their academic credentials. The bottom line is that DEI considerations were used as the primary metric for eliminating the initial 21% of applicants.


Legal Summary


This Case Study indicates that private, personally held views unrelated to the STEM subject area and the academic expertise of the applicants were used as criteria for eliminating faculty candidates. The Case Study also indicates that demographic and identity characteristic profiling was used to reject candidates. The end result of this DEI screening was a rejection of 21% of applicants without a full comparative review of their academic credentials promised by Cornell. Based on a review by CFSA legal advisors, such practices are discriminatory and constitute violations of both US and New York State Anti-Discrimination and Employment Law.


Are Lawsuits Coming Against Cornell?


Given the fact set of the above Case Study, one might ask: Why have legal cases not yet been brought against Cornell related to such discriminatory DEI practices? The answer is twofold. Firstly, when 21% of faculty applicants were rejected, the candidates were not told the reason for their elimination from further consideration. Therefore, these candidates were not privy to any evidence that might exist regarding Cornell’s unlawful handling of their candidacy. Secondly, if any evidence of an aspiring professor’s mistreatment by Cornell became known by the applicant, such an applicant would recognize that the public spectacle of bringing a lawsuit against Cornell would: i) almost surely prevent such an applicant from being hired by any other leading university, almost all of which engage in similarly discriminatory DEI practices; and ii) be personally and professionally ostracized by the DEI-dominated cultures existing at most leading US universities, research institutions, and scholarly publications.


For these reasons and to avoid self-harm, any aspiring professor would be loathe to become a plaintiff in such legal action against Cornell – regardless if such litigation might be won or lost. However, the tide is now turning in US academia. Before long, Cornell and/or other leading US universities are sure to become subject to lawsuits for such DEI-driven employment discrimination ( seeRef G,Ref H,Ref I,andRef J).


What Should Cornell Now Do?


Cornell’s first priority should be to appoint a presidential replacement for Martha Pollack who is dedicated to stopping the further advancement of Cornell into its ongoing DEI disaster. The next Cornell President must maintain both the mission and the backbone to reverse current campus DEI policies and to correct the course of the university. If Cornell continues its current discriminatory DEI practices, it seems sure that the university will become the target of litigation for DEI-related abuses.


Cornell’s attempts to obfuscate its DEI policiesby quietly making changes to its website are far from sufficient and will not save the university from legal liability. Litigation challenging Cornell’s DEI abuses could result in substantial financial penalties being levied against the university.


To prevent being found legally liable for employment and/or admissions discrimination and associated loss of its academic reputation and standing, Cornell should: i) completely drop any requirement for faculty, staff and/or students to submit DEI Statements as part of employment, promotion, and/or admissions processes; ii) terminate the solicitation or collection of any such DEI Statements (or related information), whether required or optional, in university hiring and admissions; and iii) prohibit employment Search Committees or Admissions Officers from using or considering any form of DEI related information or submittals in the university’s decision-making processes.


Such policy shifts are now being implemented at MIT and other leading universities nationwide.These policy changes have been recommended by CFSA for Cornell’s immediate action :



CFSA Open Inquiry Policy Recommendations To Cornell University


These DEI policy overhauls have been demanded by major Cornell donors (see the January 2024Jon A. Lindseth Letter To Cornell Trusteesand related press coverage inRef K,Ref L,andRef M)as well as major donor and academics at other Ivy League schools from across the political spectrum (seeRef N,Ref O,Ref M,andRef P).These calls for university DEI policy overhauls are non-partisan, being made by scholars, donors, and thought leaders having a wide range of social and political viewpoints.


Cornell President Martha Pollack instituted an expansive array of damaging DEI policies during her leadership tenure and has expressed die-hard dedication to abusive DEI practices. The aim of these policies is to fundamentally change the purpose and mission of Cornell University from the pursuit of academic excellence to the advancement of one-sided political and social engineering agendas.


The recently announced termination of the Pollack Administration, a great opportunity for the new Cornell President (Michael Kotlikoff) to begin the process of shifting the university’s focus away from DEI political activism and back to the university’s fundamental purpose of academic and research excellence.


CFSA urges Mr. Kotlikoff to seize this opportunity to return Cornell to its founding educational mission before its reputation and standing are permanently degraded. Cornell cannot fix its DEI problem with secret webpage language alterations or halfway measures. As advisedbyCornell Law Professor William A. Jacobson, the university must fully eradicate DEI abuses on campus :


(Cornell’s) DEI initiative was a colossal mistake that cannot be tweaked around the edges. It must be removed wholesale, weeded out root and branch.” - Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School

While CFSA must preserve confidentiality with respect to the specific Cornell personnel and academic departments which have reported the above Case Study information, CFSA would look forward to the opportunity to further discuss these DEI policy matters with the Cornell Administration.


Over the past year, CFSA has made numerous requests to meet with Cornell leadership for this purpose. However, thus far, CFSA has received no response from the Cornell Administration or Trustees. This silence is deafening.


1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page