Cornell Faculty Senate Votes No Confidence in Leadership Over Handling of Alleged Fraternity Gang Rape

On Friday, Cornell University's Faculty Senate passed a resolution declaring "no confidence" in the school's top leaders. The vote was 75-50, with five senators abstaining and five others not voting, according to an email sent to senate members that afternoon. It was a symbolic act, but it reflected how far discontent has spread across the campus.

The immediate cause is a lawsuit filed in mid-September by a former student, identified as Jane Doe. She sued the university and seven former members of the Chi Phi fraternity, saying she was given ketamine and raped at a fraternity house in October 2024. All seven men have denied the allegations. Some say the sex was consensual; others say they were not involved.

The criminal side of the case has shifted. The local district attorney initially concluded that the woman had consented and that no crime had been committed. That investigation has since been reopened and handed to New York's attorney general.

Cornell's own disciplinary process, a monthslong Title IX investigation, ended with different outcomes for the accused, according to records obtained by The New York Times. Two students were expelled. Two received suspensions and probation. Two were required to write reflection papers and complete bystander training. A seventh man had already graduated and was barred from campus.

The resolution followed weeks of debate among professors over whether President Michael Kotlikoff and other administrators handled the woman's allegations properly, and whether they have done enough to curb sexual misconduct. Some faculty criticized Kotlikoff for not acting more forcefully to strengthen the disciplinary process, push for criminal investigations and change campus party culture. He had convened a task force on sexual misconduct, which released certain recommendations.

The senate has no power over the university's leadership, and the resolution did not call for Kotlikoff's resignation. Its backers said they hoped it would pressure the board of trustees to address institutional failures they described as longstanding. Paul Ortiz, a labor history professor and co-sponsor, 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 "fortress of silence" around sexual violence had been breached since the resolution was introduced.

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

The trustees responded Friday. They said the vote reflected deep anger on campus and sent a clear signal that what happened to Jane Doe is unacceptable, but that Kotlikoff and his administration were the right leaders to address the issue thoughtfully and comprehensively. Board chair Anne Smalling said the board fully supports the president, and cited expanded sexual assault prevention education, additional victim advocates and more staff at the Office of Civil Rights. Thomas Giuffra, Jane Doe's attorney, said he hoped the vote would be another step toward educating and supporting the community.

Some professors had argued that the faculty should wait for an independent investigation by Sally Yates, the former U.S. Deputy Attorney General. Cornell hired her to examine how it responded to the woman's initial report in 2024 and how it handles similar reports from other students. Her findings, and the attorney general's handling of the reopened criminal case, are what to watch next.