Two weeks ago, the Cornell community learned that one of its most outspoken and prominent members, Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, government, was leaving the Hill after 27 years. Unfortunately, the loss of Rabkin illustrates a dangerous precedent with regards to faculty retention.
A renowned scholar in international law circles, Rabkin is leaving Cornell to join both the Institute for Peace (pending Senate confirmation) and the faculty at George Mason School of Law in Washington D.C. Testifying before Congress seven times, he also authored important works on the sovereignty of nations. Rabkin was awarded the title of “Cornell’s Most Influential Teacher” by Merrill Presidential Scholars in both 1999 and 2001.
Of course, Rabkin is well known on campus for his role as the only vocal conservative in the government department. As the Chair of the College Republicans, it was very comforting for me to have such a good representative of my ideology to whom students could turn.
As a student in two of his classes, I witnessed firsthand Rabkin’s patience while students questioned his views. Through his well-prepared arguments, he forced many students to defend their own ideological beliefs. This semester, one can always find at least five or six students waiting after class to continue discussion. Regardless of ideology, that is a sign of a beloved professor.
Given these circumstances, one would think that Cornell and the government department in particular would do everything in their power to keep this man at our university. I certainly assumed so and figured that a government appointment and teaching job near Washington, D.C. was simply too enticing for him. He’d given his service to Cornell, and it was simply time to move forward.
This assumption soon gave way to astonishment. Last week, former Sun Editor in Chief Andy Guess ’05 conducted an interview with Rabkin that he posted on the MetaEzra website. In the interview, Rabkin outlines the events leading up to his decision to leave. After alerting the Chair of the Government Department, Valerie Bunce, of the offers he had received, the department did what any university should do when they want to keep a faculty member: nothing.
“Cornell made no effort of any kind to keep me here,” Rabkin stated in the interview. “[Bunce] did nothing at all … I did not feel I had any choice.”
Not surprisingly, Rabkin felt “disappointed” by the lack of a gesture by his employer. As the interview progresses, it becomes clear that his decision to leave was motivated less by the opportunity and more by necessity.
“People with good prospects elsewhere don’t stay at institutions which make no effort to hold on to them,” Rabkin said, adding that those “who have good opportunities elsewhere don’t stay where they are not appreciated.”
I asked Bunce to comment on the situation. She said, “The procedures for addressing Rabkin’s job offer were precisely the same as those for any faculty member who is being courted by another institution.” Though expressing sadness at Rabkin’s departure, the official statement of the government department does not refute any of his claims.
The problem with this situation lies in Bunce’s quote. As easy as it would be to attribute the government department’s actions to simple ideological bias, the problem we are facing as a school lies much deeper. Rabkin, after giving a very assertive interview, made it clear when he said, “I do not think I was the victim of some partisan conspiracy against me at Cornell.” If he felt that ideological discrimination was the case, I have no doubt that he would have articulated that point.
What we are looking at is the case of a prominent faculty member realizing that the institution he helped shape for decades had no mechanism set up to react to an outside appreciation of his talents. Nothing was done to keep this important professor, and the official word out of the government department states that it would act no differently with any other professor in the future. Rabkin felt that his situation was not high on the Chair’s list of priorities. Given the lack of public response to that allegation, we are left to wonder what the department deemed to be more important than the retention of one of the most famous professors at Cornell.
Rabkin left no stone unturned, lamenting, “From talking to other people (in other departments), I get the impression that Cornell is not well-organized to respond to outside offers.”
Thus, while this University boasts of its all-star faculty, at least one professor is publicly stating that we’re doing little more than crossing our fingers to keep them here.
This situation will certainly do wonders for our school’s reputation. Imagine that you are a high profile scholar interested in relocating. Would you go to a school that refuses to extend to their professors simple courtesies such as counter-offers? How many top-tier students will gain admittance to Cornell, only to wonder if their favorite professor is next to leave? If this result is an illumination of a systemic problem at Cornell, then these are questions that must be addressed.
I can only form my opinion from the information I have been given. As a government student and, much more importantly to the University, an imminent member of the alumni community, I believe that we as students have a right to know what is going on with our money. It would be one thing if Cornell had been outbid, or if Rabkin had walked into Bunce’s office and stated that he was leaving no matter what. These two events never happened, casting a shadow of doubt on Cornell’s commitment to faculty diversity and simple academic excellence.
According to the State of the University address, Cornell will replace one third of its faculty in the next 10 to 15 years. While this idea may be positive in the long run, the case of Jeremy Rabkin illustrates the possibility that we are consciously losing our most talented professors.
Megan Sweeney is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at mps65@cornell.edu. The 700 Level appears alternate Mondays.