Cornell Faculty Pass No-Confidence Vote in Leaders Amid Fraternity Gang Rape Lawsuit

On Friday afternoon, an email went out to the members of Cornell University's Faculty Senate with the result of a vote: 75 in favor, 50 against, five abstaining and five not voting. The resolution declared no confidence in the university's top leaders. It carries no binding force, but it is a pointed signal of how much discontent has built on campus since a former student sued the school over an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party in 2024.

The lawsuit was filed in mid-September. The plaintiff, identified in court documents only as Jane Doe, names the university and seven former members of the Chi Phi fraternity. She says she was given ketamine and raped at the fraternity house in October 2024. All of the men deny the allegations, saying either that the sex was consensual or that they were not involved. The local district attorney first concluded that she had consented and that no crime occurred, but the investigation has since been reopened and handed to New York's attorney general.

Cornell's own response came through a monthslong Title IX investigation. According to records obtained by The New York Times, two of the accused students were expelled and two were suspended and placed on probation. Two more were required to write reflection papers and complete bystander training. The seventh man had already graduated and was barred from campus. President Michael Kotlikoff also convened a task force on sexual misconduct, which has released some recommendations.

Some faculty found that insufficient. Critics said Kotlikoff had not moved forcefully enough to strengthen the disciplinary process, press for criminal investigations or change campus party culture. Paul Ortiz, a labor history professor who co-sponsored the resolution, said hundreds of students, staff, alumni and faculty had approached the sponsors to say the Jane Doe case is "but a tip of the iceberg," and that a "veritable fortress of silence" around sexual violence had been breached since the resolution was introduced.

Kotlikoff spoke to senators on the first day of debate and defended himself. He pledged to make Cornell a leader on sexual assault and asked for more time. Replacing him, he argued, would do little to solve complex problems and could harm the university's reputation. He acknowledged he had not read the campus police report, saying university policy bars top administrators from interfering in criminal investigations. He rejected the idea that he had been indifferent to the woman's case, though he conceded he had learned only recently that she had left Cornell. He also said the university must determine whether fraternities can operate safely, leaving open sweeping restrictions on Greek life, and that decisions should rest on research and evidence rather than emotion.

Some professors had urged the Senate to wait for an independent review by Sally Yates, the former U.S. Deputy Attorney General, whom Cornell hired to examine how it handled the woman's initial 2024 report and its procedures for similar complaints from other students. The Senate voted before that report arrived. The resolution did not call for Kotlikoff's resignation.

Board of Trustees Chair Anne Smalling said the vote "reflects the deep anger across our campus" and made clear that what happened to the woman was unacceptable. She added, however, that Kotlikoff and his administration were the right leaders to address the issue "thoughtfully and comprehensively." Thomas Giuffra, the woman's attorney, said he hoped the vote would be another step toward educating and supporting the community in confronting what he called the longstanding scourge of sexual assault on campus.

Junior Yasmeen Masoud, speaking at a news conference held by the sponsors, called the vote encouraging. Students, she said, should not have to beg for answers or generate media attention to have their concerns acknowledged. Co-sponsor Iris Packman called the vote "only the beginning" and said faculty would press for sweeping reforms. What to watch now: whether the trustees move beyond their statement, what the Yates investigation finds, and what the attorney general's reopened inquiry decides.